[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 128 (Thursday, August 3, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H8386-H8418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 32 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], amendment No. 10 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], amendment No. 18 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 amendment no. 32 offered by mr. kolbe

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 215, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 619]

                               AYES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--215

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Buyer
     Filner
     Geren
     Gutierrez
     McKeon

[[Page H 8387]]

     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Towns
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1936

  Mr. TUCKER and Mr. EDWARDS chaned their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                      announcement by the chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the Chair 
announces he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time 
within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on each 
amendment on which the Chair has postponed further proceedings.


                 amendment no. 10 offered by mr. ganske

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Ganske.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 235, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 620]

                               AYES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--235

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Tucker
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Filner
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Serrano
     Thurman
     Towns
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1943

  Mr. ROSE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So, the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                 amendment no. 18 Offered by Mr. BLUTE

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Blute], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 53, 
noes 367, answered ``present'' 3, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 621]

                                AYES--53

     Allard
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Camp
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Danner
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frisa
     Houghton
     Johnson (CT)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lazio
     LoBiondo
     Martini
     McDade
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Molinari
     Neal
     Ney
     Olver
     Petri
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Schaefer
     Shuster
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solomon
     Torkildsen
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Whitfield

                               NOES--367

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr

[[Page H 8388]]

     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--3

     DeFazio
     Jacobs
     Sanders

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Filner
     Moakley
     Payne (VA)
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Towns
     Williams
     Wilson
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1951

  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret, due to the fact that I was told 
at midnight on August 2 to expect no more recorded votes, that I left 
the floor of the House and did not vote on rollcall vote No. 617, on a 
motion to adjourn. Had I voted I would have voted ``nay.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to correct my vote on 
rollcall vote No. 614 from ``yea'' to ``nay.'' Let the Record reflect 
this clarification as my original intention.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to title VI?


                 amendment no. 64 offered by mr. skaggs

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 64 offered by Mr. Skaggs: Page 76, strike 
     line 1 and all that follows through page 88, line 7.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] will be recognized for 20 
minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma will be taking the time in opposition; is 
that correct?
  Mt. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. 
Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important as we start consideration of this 
amendment, to strike what is referred to as the Istook amendment out of 
this bill, that we understand what the amendment is and what it is not, 
that we attempt to separate myth from fact.
  Let me make a generalization to begin with, which I intend to support 
with some specifics. The generalization is this: This proposal, now 13 
pages buried in this appropriations bill, is an incredibly intrusive 
scheme designed to do one thing, and that is to control certain kinds 
of political activity in this country, activity that is clearly 
protected by the Constitution of the United States and the first 
amendment. It is designed to keep many Americans and their 
organizations from participating fully in the political life of this 
great and free land.
  That may seem incredible to Members. How could we be running so 
directly into the teeth of the first amendment? So let me try to give 
some particulars.
  The first question to be answered is who is covered under this 
legislative proposal. We need to look at the particulars. The devil is 
truly in the details here. A grant here is not just Federal money, it 
is a provision of anything of value. Any grantee who receives a grant 
is covered. And although there has been a lot of propaganda put out 
about this, individual persons, notwithstanding the amendment of the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] at the beginning of the debate on 
this bill, will still be subject to five out of the eight very major 
restrictions that this legislation involves. All business and 
organizations, not just nonprofits, will be subject to these very 
restrictive provisions.
  Those are the definitions. How do the definitions apply to reality? 
Here are some--I stress ``some''--of the individuals, businesses and 
organizations that are going to become subject to this political 
reporting and control regime:
  People getting science research grants at your local college or 
university; pregnant women in your district getting Women, Infant and 
Children vouchers and early childhood care; after you may have a 
disaster, anybody getting FEMA disaster relief; meals on wheels; BUREC 
water; even day care subsidies.
  What happens to these people? Controls on their privately funded 
political activity. They must handle their affairs according to 
generally accepted accounting principles; they are subject to Federal 
audits by the GAO and IG; subject to lawsuits by zealous citizens that 
want to take on the task of being a private attorney general; they must 
certify their political activity to the United States Government; and 
all of that gets collected in a Big Brother-like centralized computer 
in Washington, DC, that will keep track of the political communications 
and contributions in this country.
  It is a stunningly chilling proposal that should scare the heck out 
of every single one of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the language which the gentleman from Colorado wishes 
to take out of this bill was placed there by an open and public vote 
after much debate by the Committee on Appropriations.

                              {time}  2000

  It also relates to hearings that have been held on three occasions in 
recent weeks by committees of this body.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason is in the United States, taxpayers' money 
from the Federal Government, approximately $40 billion, with a B, each 
year goes to tens of thousands of organizations; not for a contract, 
not for services rendered or an exchange of goods for cash, but as 
grants, as gifts from the Federal Government to promote certain 
purposes.
  Mr. Chairman, the difficulty is these groups are heavily engaged in 
lobbying activity and political advocacy in trying to advance a 
political agenda. The 

[[Page H 8389]]
language which the gentleman seeks to take out says basically two 
things: Those who receive these gifts of taxpayers' dollars, first, 
cannot use any of the taxpayers' money for lobbying; and, second, if 
they want these handouts from the Federal Government, then they should 
not use any more than 5 percent of their other money for any type of 
lobbying activity.
  That 5 percent parallels restrictions already placed on nonprofit 
organizations through the IRS code. They are not prohibited from 
activity. Their free speech rights are reserved, but no longer will 
taxpayers' money be used for welfare for lobbyists, Mr. Chairman.
  Public money should not be used to try to promote bigger Government, 
bigger taxes, greater expenditures, and more feeding at the Federal 
trough. That is what the language seeks to do, which we desire to 
preserve by defeating the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, organizations that are on the public dole should not 
claim it as free speech. It is taxpayer subsidized speech.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York [Ms. Slaughter].
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs 
amendment. The Istook language to restrict nonprofit organizations and 
companies from using their own private funs for political advocacy is 
the most far reaching, radical approach to silencing the opposition 
that I have ever witnessed as a Member of this institution. This 
language is simply not necessary; current law already prohibits the use 
of any Federal funds for lobbying. If there is concerns about 
enforcement, then lets deal with that.
  I have several concerns regarding the Istook provisions. Perhaps the 
most pertinent would be the fact that this new mandate is being pushed 
through the
 House with little or no discussion. An appropriations bill is clearly 
not the vehicle for authorizing this type of assault on the Bill of 
Rights. I find it interesting that the Subcommittee on National 
Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs of the 
Government Reform and Oversight has held two hearings on this language 
after it was adopted in the Appropriations Committee. Hearings are held 
to allow the public to comment and present testimony on pending 
legislative action. What has been done in this situation is that the 
Republicans have reached a conclusion and are now misusing the hearing 
process to build their case. It would be like a jury deciding the 
innocence or guilt of the defendant prior to the trial and then 
conducting the trial, picking witnesses based on their predetermined 
verdict.
  I urge the adoption of the Skaggs amendment. In any case, I am sure 
the courts would find this all unconstitutional if it should pass, but 
we should not allow this assault on the first amendment rights of 
groups like the March of Dimes, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and 
veterans organizations. These groups should not have a grand new 
bureaucracy imposed upon them.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we will later have the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary to address the constitutional issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Delay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a glorious day. We are revealing 
Washington's best-kept secret: welfare for lobbyists.
  This is an amendment that exposes what has been going on in this town 
for many, many years, where organizations from the left like Act-Up all 
the way to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have taken Federal funds and 
have lobbied for more Federal funds.
  It is a cycle, a continuous cycle that we have to break, and we hope 
to break it tonight. As the gentleman says, there is $40 billion in 
Federal grants each year that goes into lobbying and we are not 
limiting anyone. They can spend up to a million dollars. Is a million 
dollars not enough to lobby in this town? We are not closing anybody 
down, but what we are doing is we are breaking that chain that has 
controlled this town for so long.
  This bill attacks the problem directly and indirectly. Money is 
fungible. If we give them Federal grants in one pocket they can take 
other moneys to lobby with. Stop welfare for lobbyists. Vote ``no'' on 
the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
  Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, when I came to the House as a freshman many, 
many years ago, Speaker Sam Rayburn spoke to the freshman class and 
said that the floor of the House is great theater. He said, ``Don't 
take the floor unless you know what you are talking about.''
  We have tried to obtain answers from the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook]. We have tried to obtain answers on definitions. Nothing has 
greeted us except distortion and misrepresentation. He speaks as though 
this were a bill directed against lobbyists.
  Take a look at what the definitions are. The definitions themselves 
show that it is not only the average lobbyist. This is what it says is 
covered: carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence 
legislation or agency action.
  Anybody who writes his Congressman, any constituent of yours who 
writes his Congressman about one of the issues and who happens to have 
a Federal grant is subject to that definition.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, there is an exemption for individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
[Ms. Dunn].
  Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Skaggs amendment which is really an effort to remove the language that 
ends Government subsidies for advocacy groups.
  In 1990, more than 40,000 organizations from all across the political 
spectrum received a total of $39 billion--yes, billion--in Government 
grants. Many of these groups turn around and aggressively lobby 
Congress on behalf of their own special interests. It is a vicious 
circle, and the taxpayer loses.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about giving taxpayer dollars to 
advocacy groups so that they can use those taxpayer dollars to hire 
people to lobby for more taxpayer dollars.
  A couple of months ago, my parents received a direct mail scare piece 
from one of these Federal grant recipient groups alleging--falsely--
that I, as a Member of Congress, was going to wipe out my parents' 
retirement plans by blindly cutting their Medicare benefits.
  My father, age 84, called my congressional office here in Washington, 
DC, wanting to know if it were true the Republicans wanted to ruin his 
retirement by slashing his Medicare coverage.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a flat-out lie. There are no plans to cut 
Medicare, only hopes to save it. Yet this particular organization that 
sent my parents the mailing receives $86 million of taxpayer funds each 
year to help pay for its scare-tactic lobbying. This is outrageous, and 
a huge conflict of interest and should be ended.
  Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers are buried in debt. We do not need to add 
insult to injury by taking their money to give it to groups which often 
exist largely to lobby for more money from the taxpayer.
  This is not a question of whether or not we support the various 
groups that receive these taxpayer dollars, it is a question of whether 
special interests should be allowed to use those taxpayer dollars to 
advance their agendas.
  Side with the taxpayers, support this provision, and reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
  (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment of the gentleman from Colorado.
  The gentleman's amendment would strike title VI of the bill about 
which I have great concerns.
  Over 400 different groups have opposed the restrictions on political 
advocacy contained in title VI of the bill. These groups include the 
Red Cross, the American Cancer Society, the Boy Scouts, the Girl 
Scouts, the YMCA, the YWCA, and many others.

[[Page H 8390]]

  Title VI contains severe, new restrictions on the amount a small 
charitable organization can spend on political advocacy. Title VI also 
limits for the first time the amount that certain public interest 
groups can spend on political advocacy. It also imposes burdensome new 
reporting and accounting requirements on all Federal grantees.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought the new Republican majority was all about 
lifting government regulation from the American people; but, the 
restrictions on political advocacy in this bill do just the opposite. 
Title VI of this bill tells everyone from the YMCA to the Association 
of Retarded Citizens how much of their own money they can spend on 
political advocacy.
  These restrictions are so broad that universities and colleges would 
have to report and account annually for the political activities of its 
trustees, its faculty, and its students. The Red Cross would have to 
require all of its volunteers to fill out political advocacy statements 
and to account for their political activities. In addition, all those 
receiving Federal grants would have the burden of proving that they 
have not spent more than 5 percent of their own money on political 
advocacy in any one of the last 5 years.
  Clearly, these provisions impose new regulatory burdens; they do not 
lift existing ones. I can only conclude, therefore, that the proponents 
of this provision are not interested in lifting government regulation 
for everyone.
  If we look at the way title VI works, we get an idea of who the 
proponents want to regulate, and who they do not. For example, big 
companies and big charities that receive Federal grants will not be 
affected by the spending limitations in title VI. Their overall budgets 
are so large that they would never spend as much on advocacy as the 
bill permits.
  Furthermore, these new restrictions discriminate against smaller, 
non-profit groups which would be allowed to spend only a quarter as 
much of their own funds on political advocacy as larger non-profits. In 
addition, these limitations would only apply to Federal grantees, while 
defense and other government contractors would be able to engage freely 
and without limitation in the same political activities.
  Question: Why should the YMCA be subject to severe, new limitations 
in asking Congress to allow it to continue providing after-school 
services, but General Dynamics be completely free to lobby all it wants 
for a new purchase of fighter planes? Does this sound fair?
  The proponents like to say these new restrictions are needed because 
money is fungible. They say that even if grant funds cannot be used for 
lobbying, it frees up other money that can.
  If the argument is that money is fungible, then the restrictions the 
proponents want to put on grantees should also be put on defense and 
other contractors. Federal dollars that go to firms in the form of 
contracts are every bit as fungible as Federal dollars that go to 
charities and other entities in the form of grants.
  Proponents also like to say they simply do not believe that the 
taxpayer should have to subsidize the political activities of those who 
received Federal grants. Who does?
  Lobbying with Federal grant money has been prohibited since 1919.
  The only new policy in this proposal, is the restriction on political 
advocacy that an organization pays for with its own, privately 
generated money.
  Title VI provides a very sweeping definition of political advocacy. 
It includes everything from contacts with a local water and sewer 
agency, to contacts with federal agencies, the Congress, as well as 
litigation before the courts.
  Political advocacy is also defined to include, and I quote, carrying 
on propaganda. Who is supposed to decide what propaganda is--the bill 
gives us no clue at all.
  It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that if this provision is enacted, every 
Federal agency will potentially be able to decide for itself what 
propaganda is. These agencies compile reports on the political 
activities of its grant recipients, and the result will be nothing less 
than a national data base on political advocacy.
  I think that is a result that can serve no useful purpose. It could, 
however, restrain and inhibit freedom of political debate like nothing 
we have seen since the 1950's.
  In fact, David Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown 
University Law Center, said:

       The Istook bill is constitutionally flawed in numerous 
     respects, most fundamentally because it restricts the rights 
     of all federal grantees to use their own money to engage in 
     core First Amendment protected activities, including public 
     debate on issues of public concern, communication with 
     elected representatives, and litigation against the 
     government.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, as strongly as I possibly can, to 
vote for the gentleman's amendment, so that title VI may be stricken 
from the bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, of course, only groups which ask for and 
get Federal handouts are covered.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Hyde], the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, if there is anything unjust, almost by definition, it 
is being coerced out of funds and having them spent on causes one 
violently disagrees with. That is really at the heart and soul of 
having funds that one must pay to get into a school or to be a student 
in good standing, and have those funds subsidizing causes that may 
violate their conscience or their sense of prudence or proportion. It 
is just the definition of injustice.
  If a cause is worthy of its name, it will be supported. If you build 
it, they will come. But to coerce money for lobbying on things that you 
abhor is just wrong. I do not want public funding of elections, my 
money, to go to pay for Lyndon LaRouche's campaign, and I daresay the 
Members do not either.
  If a charity deserves contributions they will get them, but do not 
have them coerced out of people who resist.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I find almost amusing the suggestion that 
this is somehow an antilobbying bill. As I walk down the halls coming 
over to the floor of the House, just like everyone else, I pass 
lobbyists, lots of lobbyists, but they are not lobbyists representing 
the homeless associations and nonprofit groups across the country. They 
are not lobbyists representing the nonprofit battered spouse shelters.
  They are lobbyists from the defense contractors. They are lobbyists 
from the highway contractors. They are lobbyists from the space station 
contractors. We have written them out of this exclusion. We do not deal 
with them at all. That is where the lobbying is coming from.
  I asked myself why in the world would we draw a distinction like 
that. Is there something about a space station lobbyist whose company 
makes their entire revenues from space station contracting that makes 
their advice on Federal legislation more valuable than coming from an 
advocate for a battered spouse who happens to donate her time helping 
victims of domestic violence? Why in the world would we draw a 
distinction like that? Shelters do not have a lot of PAC money. They do 
not support political action committees, but in fact the contractors 
do, the space station contractors do, the defense contractors do, the 
highway contractors do. That is why this mean-spirited amendment has 
been drawn to choke out the voices of those who cannot be heard and 
leaving unchecked the raw lobbying clout of some of the most mighty 
contractors in this country.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs 
amendment to strip the provision in this bill which once and for all 
puts an end to federally funded welfare for lobbyists.
                              {time}  2015

  Now, it is an indication of just how difficult it is to bring this 
Federal deficit spending under control when we have to fight off an 
attempt from the same old crowd, the guardians of the old order who 
think it is absolutely essential to take our Federal tax dollars and 
pay people to come in here and lobby us. Aside from the outrageous use 
of taxpayers' dollars to keep lobbyists on the Federal trough, it is 
also used by Federal agencies as an escape hatch for the Hatch Act.
  Let me give you an example. The National Fish and Wildlife 
Foundation, a 

[[Page H 8391]]
private, nonprofit foundation and organization, received $7.5 million 
in Government grants and then was asked by the Secretary of the 
Interior to lobby Congress on behalf of the National Biological 
Service. This is nonsensical. Shame to those who would continue this 
type of practice. It has to stop.
  We can made the sea change now. ``No'' on Skaggs and ``yes'' on the 
end of welfare for lobbyists.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate].
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I was talking to one of my constituents the 
other day, and he said, ``Randy, do I got this right? I work hard, I 
sent my tax dollars to Washington, DC, then they give it to groups to 
lobby against things I do not believe in.''
  Let me give you an example. The American Bar Association received, 
what, $10 million last year, then staged a rally against the flag 
amendment.
  They lobby for all kinds of things we do not believe in.
  I have heard arguments across the aisle about free speech. How can it 
be free if the taxpayers have to pay for it. I have heard about that 
this somehow is Big Brother. Nothing could be more Big Brother than 
going into my wallet, taking my money, and then spending it for causes 
I do not believe in.
  How can you look in the eyes of my taxpayers who already are paying 
enough and ask them to take a little bit more so we can send it back to 
Washington, DC, so they can lobby for causes I do not believe in? It is 
time that those lobbyists get out of laying sideways in the public 
trough and get back out into the trenches. It is time to end welfare 
for the lobbyists.
  I urge your opposition.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings].
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Skaggs amendment to title VI.
  This title is particularly hypocritical since some of the same 
Members who support this language are the ones who killed lobbying 
reform legislation last year. Why did they kill lobbying reform? 
Because they said it would have stifled grassroots lobbying efforts. 
But it is this language which will stifle grassroots lobbying and 
stifle free speech.
  This language restricts the use of private funds for lobbying by 
individuals and organizations. This is an insidious assault on the 
freedoms of all Americans who choose to avail themselves of the 
political process.
  This is clearly an attempt by Republicans to stifly the voice of the 
liberal-earthy - cunchy- labor- supporting-bran- 
ola-eating individuals and organizations which devote themselves to 
making America a better place by utilizing their constitutionally 
mandated right to influence the political process.
  The entire premise of this title is bizarre. There seems to be among 
conservative groups the misconception that nonprofit groups are using 
Federal dollars to lobby.
  This is illegal. There are already laws on the book that prohibit the 
use of Federal dollars to lobby. In fact, if it is found that Federal 
moneys have been used to lobby, the group found in violation must 
return the money. They are then prohibited from applying for future 
grants, and there is a serious risk that criminal procedures will be 
brought against them.
  I find it ironic that this language mandates stringent reporting 
requirements, when one of the goals of the restrictive Republican 
revolution has been to remove the Federal Government from the everyday 
lives of the American public. Requiring all Federal grantees to fill 
out lengthy reports is extraordinarily intrusive.
  I am amazed that the Republican Party, who tried to end the school 
lunch program because ``the Governement should stay out of the business 
of feeding our children,'' is the same party that wants to force the 
American public to report their political activities. Senator McCarthy 
is dead, but his legacy clearly lives on.
  The intent of this language is obvious. It is to send the message to 
labor-oriented persons, nonprofits, and grassroots organizations not to 
disagree with the conservatives. It tells those groups that they may 
participate in the democratic process only if they agree with the 
Republicans. Well, I for one will not support censorship. This is the 
United States of America, not Fidel Castro's Cuba. Support free speech 
by supporting the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to point out what 
often seems to be forgotten. We are not talking about free speech. We 
are talking about people who expect the taxpayers to buy them a 
microphone or a broadcasting studio or a printing press. We are talking 
about groups that ask for and receive billions of dollars of taxpayers' 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Riggs].
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, my colleague on the 
Committee on Appropriations, for his fine work in this area.
  This is a tough fight, but I urge my colleagues to resist the Skaggs 
amendment and point out that we are going to hear a lot about first 
amendment rights being discussed out here on the floor this morning, 
this evening, soon to be morning.
  Anyone that takes a careful look at this amendment knows the first 
amendment rights are not being infringed upon. There are plenty of 
advocacy groups out there across the land, by the way, nonprofit 
educational research institutes, who are sharing their insights with us 
elected policymakers without using the taxpayers' money. This is really 
one of those times when we have to, if you will pardon the expression, 
put up or shut up.
  If we believe in lobbying reform in this body, the Istook, and 
others, amendment is a very fine place to start, and I urge my 
colleagues oppose the Skaggs amendment. Support the Istook language in 
the base bill reported out by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, much of the debate on this bill, I am sad 
to say, has been full of sophistry and a little hypocrisy.
  Remember the law says you cannot use Federal money to lobby, period, 
existing law. What this bill says, and remember, we have paid 
professional lobbyists all over this town. This bill does not affect 
them. We have companies represented by those paid professional 
lobbyists who get billions of dollars of Federal contracts. This bill 
does not affect them.
  What this bill says is, to quote from yesterday's Chicago Tribune, if 
you are a nonprofit group and you get a grant to run a homeless 
shelter, shut up; if you are a for-profit group with a contract to run 
a homeless shelter, you are free to speak.
  In short, this amendment stifles nonprofit service groups which get 
money from the Federal Government to carry out purposes that the 
Government decides are for a public purpose, just the same as Lockheed 
gets money from the Federal Government to carry out a program of 
defense development that Government decides is a public purpose.
  But we tell the local group that is running a homeless shelter shut 
up, but Lockheed can spend billions on lobbyists.
  This amendment stifles nonprofit service groups while continuing to 
allow defense contractors, agribusiness, professional paid lobbyists 
and a host of others who also receive billions of dollars of tax 
dollars in Federal money not to be gagged. Why do we not gag these 
lobbyists, too? Because it is not in your ideological purpose to do so.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich], one of the coauthors of this amendment which is 
now under scrutiny.
  Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, enough of the demagoguery, enough of the spin.
  I want to talk about some facts. Fact No. 1, I rise to speak for the 
unrepresented here, which is the American taxpayer, the folks not 
outside that door lobbying this Congress.
  Second, with respect to the scare tactics employed by the other side 
on this issue, if you read the bill, if you look at the facts, the 
facts are as follows: This bill does not cover recipients of 
entitlements. This bill does not cover 

[[Page H 8392]]
individuals. This bill does not cover recipients of school loans. This 
bill does not cover the courts. This bill does not cover State 
government. This bill does not cover educational loans. They are the 
facts. Read the bill.
  Third, Mr. Chairman, the definition of a grantee and the definition 
of a Federal contractor, there is a clear distinction in the law. This, 
Mr. Chairman, this is the law, and these are the regulations with 
respect to laws governing Federal contractors.
  We do not have law with respect to Federal grantees. That is what 
this bill is about. That is what this initiative is about.
  Fourth, for some reason, Mr. Chairman, over the course of the last 30 
years there has grown a distinction between nonprofits who perform 
advocacy and perform service. This whole initiative is to get 
nonprofits back to actually doing what the taxpayers expect them to do, 
perform the service. Do not lobby the Congress for additional money and 
then keep coming back time after time after time. Do what you are 
supposed to do, do the right thing.
  Mr. Chairman, lastly, what this whole initiative is about, and I 
congratulate my cosponsors of the amendment, is to empower the American 
taxpayer. It is true lobbying reform. It is why we were sent to this 
Congress.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, let us be truthful with our constituents as 
to what the circumstances are. You cannot use taxpayer money, Federal 
funds, to lobby. That has been the law. That is currently the law. 
Grantees cannot use Federal funds to lobby.
  What this bill does is punitive against certain groups on their 
rights to petition their Government: the Cancer Society in dealing with 
health care issues, special education groups from dealing with the 
needs of children, the NAACP in dealing with civil rights matters. 
These are groups that are impacted by this bill.
  We are right, the defense contractors who receive the largest amount 
of Federal funds are free to use their funds to lobby Government. Why 
should not private groups be able to use their own funds to lobby 
Government? That is their right. They should be able to do it.
  Let us not be hypocritical and say some groups are subject to these 
rules and others are not.
  Vote for the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment. The 
Istook rider restricts citizens from exercising their first amendment 
right to petition the Government. The first amendment to our U.S. 
Constitution states:

       Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the right of the 
     people * * * to petition the Government for a redress of 
     grievances.

  Presently, there are adequate laws which guarantees that Federal 
dollars are not used for lobbying. Therefore, this rider is telling the 
citizens of the United States that they cannot use their own, non-
Federal dollars as they so choose.
  In addition, the Istook rider is unjust. It applies to the most 
vulnerable in our society, the poor, the homeless, the elderly, the 
disabled. Many of these groups were, in fact, founded specifically to 
advocate on behalf of the disposed. However, the largest recipient of 
Federal money, Defense contractors, are not covered by this rider. 
Therefore, the American Red Cross could be barred from advocating for 
disaster relief, or the National Cancer Society could be barred from 
advocating for health, but Defense contractors will be free to lobby 
without limitation.
  Furthermore, this rider defines public advocacy to include public 
interest litigation, in which groups advocate change in public policy. 
Think of the civil rights suits which may not be brought because they 
are deemed political advocacy. For example, the NAACP receives Federal 
grants as defined by the rider. Most recently, the NAACP received a 
grant to participate in an education campaign on fair housing. However, 
the NAACP also argued Brown versus Board of Education before the 
Supreme Court, which changed our Nation's policy regarding school 
segregation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Istook rider is unconstitutional, unjust, and 
restricts important public advocacy. I urge my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the other principal coauthor of this measure, 
who has had hearings in the subcommittee.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity to root out one of 
Washington's best kept little secrets: welfare for lobbyists. This bill 
will guarantee that Americans' taxpayer dollars do not go to fund 
lobbying here in Washington.
  My subcommittee held 3 days of hearings. We found that the Federal 
Government pays out $40 billion in grants to subsidize rich, 
multimillion-dollar outfits. We also heard from real charities who are 
striving to help real people.
  I want to share with my colleagues and the American people about one 
such person whose story deeply, deeply moved us. Mrs. Hannah Hawkins, 
who is pictured here, is a retired welfare pensioner from the inner 
city. She did not seek welfare for lobbyists. Instead, Mrs. Hawkins 
donated her own pension money to set up a program to help poor inner-
city kids. She opened up her own home so kids could have a place to go 
after school rather than joining a gang, doing drugs or ruining their 
lives. Mrs. Hawkins is a hero in her neighborhood.
  There are thousands of heroes like Mrs. Hawkins who work to help the 
elderly, the poor, the disabled and our children in the inner cities 
and the rural communities throughout America. Many do the work silently 
and outside the lights of television cameras, that keep their 
communities knit together.
  But some groups are using a large percentage of their funds, much of 
it from taxpayer funds, in order to play politics rather than help real 
people. They started down the road of much special interest politics, 
becoming high-powered lobbyists, and they have become intoxicated on 
the power brought by the welfare for lobbyists. They have forgotten 
Mrs. Hawkins and her kids. She does not need a lobbyist. She does not 
need Federal money. She needs people in her community who are willing 
to give their love, to reach out and care for their neighbors.
  The choice for us today is clear. Are we going to be on the side of 
the well-heeled, fat, rich lobbying organizations, or are we going to 
be on the side of Mrs. Hawkins and her kids and thousands and thousands 
of people like here in America? Those of us on the side of the American 
taxpayer and Mrs. Hawkins and her kids say it is time to end welfare 
for lobbyists.
  I say vote ``no'' on the Skaggs amendment. Put a stop to welfare for 
lobbyists.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer].
  (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs 
amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permissions to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Skaggs 
amendment to strike title VI from H.R. 2127, and put an end to efforts 
to prohibit political advocacy by organizations that receive Federal 
grants.
  Today we are considering fiscal year 1996 appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. It is 
largely through the funding cuts in this legislation that the new 
Republican leadership hopes to balance the budget by the year 2002 
while simultaneously increasing defense spending and cutting taxes for 
wealthy individuals and corporations. This legislation tells American 
workers and students, the children and the elderly, the middle class 
and the disadvantaged to absorb painful budget cuts so that the very 
wealthiest can prosper further still. This objective is at the core of 
the Republicans' fiscal agenda.
  Equally disturbing, however, is the fact that this Republican bill 
reaches far beyond domestic budgeting matters. It actually attempts to 
regulate the participation of some organizations in the political 
process by curbing their ability to engage in political advocacy.
  Provisions in title VI--adopted as the Istook amendment--would 
effectively suppress the political voices of certain organizations by 
severely restricting advocacy by those receiving Federal grants. 
Current law already bans the use of public funds for political 
advocacy. However, these provisions extend the prohibition far beyond 
the reach of Federal dollars. 

[[Page H 8393]]
Federal grantees would be forbidden to use more than 5 percent of their 
own private funds to engage in political advocacy.
  A very select group of organizations would be impacted by these 
prohibitions. In an unjustifiable break with current laws, the 
political activities of Federal grantees alone are singled out while 
Federal contractors are left alone. Additionally, the provisions is 
drafted so that it will impose greater burdens on grantees that operate 
on a shoe-string budget than those who are well-funded.
  Federal grantees would be permitted to use up to 5 percent of their 
budget for political advocacy, or up to 1 percent if their annual 
budget exceeds $20 million. Therefore, a corporate grantee with a $100 
million budget would still be permitted to spend $1 million for 
political advocacy. It is unlikely that such a large sum would force 
the company to alter their lobbying budget significantly from its 
levels under current law. However, a nonprofit organization with a 
$100,000 budget could confront considerable difficulties with a $5,000 
ceiling imposed on its political advocacy.
  Consequently, corporate and business entities which receive Federal 
grants and contracts would not be forced to change the way they do 
business. Small nonprofit organizations would. I believe these 
provisions were drafted in order to silence particular voices. It is no 
coincidence that those nonprofits which oppose the Republicans' fiscal 
and social agendas are the organizations impacted by this proposal.
  In order to uncover the true intent of this provision. I offered an 
amendment to the Istook amendment when the Appropriations Committee 
considered the Labor, Health and Human Services bill. My amendment 
would have extended the same prohibitions to the beneficiaries of 
Federal contracts and loans. If the intent of the original amendment 
was to safeguard taxpayer dollars, then proponents should have viewed 
my amendment as an improvement. If, however, the intent of the original 
amendment was to curb a certain type of political advocacy, then my 
amendment would have been regarded as an unacceptable obstruction to 
that goal. My amendment failed in an 18-29 vote, and the Istook 
amendment was adopted.
  Is this what the American people want? I don't believe citizens want 
to bias the political debate in this country by silencing university 
researchers and children's advocates, while extending open arms and 
deep pockets to legions of corporate lobbyists.
  We are fortunate that those who drafted this proposal were 
unavailable to assist in drafting the Bill of Rights. Title IV engages 
in blatant first amendment infringement. It seeks to prohibit free 
speech in public policy making. It is shameful that such a deliberate 
attempt to silence particular points of view has worked its way through 
the legislative process to confront us here on the floor of the House 
of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to put an end to this. Vote in 
favor of the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
  (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Skaggs amendment.
  This title VI is the most frightening piece of legislation that I 
have read since coming to the Congress. It is not only unconstitutional 
but it is a blatant attempt to stifle and control the expression of 
ordinary citizens who just happen to belong to an organization that may 
have received a grant from the Federal Government. Its reach is broad 
and extensive. It tells you that if you want to qualify for a Federal 
grant, you have to be sure that the people that you buy goods and 
services from have not ever been in a position of asking the Congress 
to support or defeat any legislation.
  I cannot think of anything more stunning than this complete denial of 
what we are all about. We are here as Members of a democratic, 
representative Government that seeks to encourage people to contact us.
  Vote for the Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am alarmed by the inclusion in this Appropriations 
bill of 13 pages which strip away individual rights guaranteed to each 
and every one of us to petition our Government for any reason 
whatsoever. Title VI of this bill states that you can't get any Federal 
funds if you participate in political advocacy.
  This bill if passed would prohibit any person who received a Federal 
grant under any law, not just this act, from speaking out on any matter 
relating to laws whether, State, Federal or local. The prohibition 
against ``political advocacy'' which includes attempts to influence 
legislation or agency action explicitly prohibits communication with 
legislators and their staffs. The definition of ``grantee'' includes 
the entire membership of the organization who are explicitly prohibited 
from communicating with legislators or urging others to do so.
  This bill disqualifies anyone from receiving a Federal grant if for 5 
previous years it used funds in excess of the allowed threshold.
  Further anyone receiving Federal grant money cannot spend it on the 
purchase of goods and services from anyone who in the previous year 
spent money on political advocacy in excess of the allowed limit.
  Political activity is defined as including publishing and 
distributing statements in any political campaign, or any judicial 
litigation in which Federal, State, or local governments are parties, 
or contributing funds to any organization whose expenses in political 
advocacy exceeded 15 percent of its total expenditures.
  This title of the bill is totally and completely unconstitutional. It 
is a blatant unlawful effort to stifle dissent and advocacy. It is 
contrary to basic principles of our democracy. It is a gag law. It must 
be defeated.
                              {time}  2030

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
  (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson. We heard a lot 
about the first amendment tonight and let us just hear from the 
gentleman who actually wrote the first amendment.
  He said:

       To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of 
     ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

  It is sinful and tyrannical. That really is what is at stake tonight, 
Mr. Chairman and Members.
  One example we heard in committee, a group that lobbies on the Hill 
and, incidentally, has a very large PAC, last year, they got 96 percent 
of their funds from the taxpayers. And guess what? They turn right 
around and come back and ask for more money from the taxpayers. To ask 
the taxpayers to continue to fund this kind of abuse is wrong.
  But let us really talk about what is so perverse here.
  I would like to thank Arianna Huffington. She not only testified but 
wrote a guest op-ed piece earlier. She said, what is happening in 
America today is many of these nonprofit groups are not helping people 
who need help. They think it is their mission to get the government to 
help them. And we should stop it.
  Please vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. I will tell you what is perverse. It is the 
gentlemen on this side trying to equate the fat-cat lobbyists sitting 
in their offices and the office of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] 
and office of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner] writing the 
regulatory reform act and gutting the Clean Water Act and to equate 
that with people in the Red Cross and equating that with people who are 
helping citizens who are dying of cancer and helping hospices and 
helping our kids stay drug free.
  The gentleman did not think they were on the dole when the 
Mississippi River overflowed its banks and you wanted the Red Cross' 
help. They did not think they were on the dole when the hurricane came 
through Florida last night and you wanted their help. But you think 
they are on the dole if they want to comment on emergency regulations 
or FEMA, if they want to comment and tell us how to do it better.
  You do not think they are on the dole when they run a hospice and a 
member of your family is dying of cancer, but if they want to comment 
on a regulatory action you think they are on the dole. That is 
perverse.
  That is what is perverse. Because the fat-cat lobbyists are not these 
people. The fat-cat lobbyists are sitting in your office and they are 
contributing to your campaigns and the Peace and Freedom whatever-it-is 
Foundation, Arianna Huffington, was started with staff money from the 
Speaker's Office, and the wallet you took out of your pockets was paid 
for by the taxpayers. That is perverse.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] says this is a glorious day.
  Let me explain something to you.

[[Page H 8394]]

  Mr. EMERSON. Regular order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. This is regular order with me when I get 
angry. Yes.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Regular order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. It it a glorious day.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be in order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. It is a glorious day. If you are a fascist, 
it is a glorious day. That is what it is about.
  Mr. EMERSON. Regular order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Come on, give me a prayer now. Talk to me 
now. Help me now. Give me a prayer. Let us go. It is tough out there, 
ladies and gentlemen. It is hard down there.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has an 
obligation to the Rules of the House.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has an obligation to the Rules of the 
House. The gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Yes, and so is this law out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be in order.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman is in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not in order. The gentleman should 
take his seat.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, I prefer to stand.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman embarrasses himself and the House when he 
carries on in the manner that he just did.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The gentleman did not embarrass himself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman did embarrass himself.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Do not speak for me. Do not speak for me.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair, regardless of all Members, will maintain 
regular order. Regular order is being observed.
  Mr. MILLER of California. That is right.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair requires of all Members that they obey the 
Rules of the House.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled. To whom does anyone wish to 
yield time?
  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled, and the gentleman has to be 
yielded to for a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, under what rule of the House can the Chair 
make an editorial comment about a Member speaking on the floor?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was attempting to bring order to the House 
and was pointing out to the Members that they had a responsibility to 
the Rules of the House.
  Mr. DURBIN. The Chair has violated the rules himself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has not violated the rules. The Chair is 
completely within his bounds to try to maintain order in the House of 
Representatives, and all Members have an obligation to the Chair.
  Mr. MILLER of California. The Chair was not in bounds to speak for 
the Member.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who yields time?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook].
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire whether the extra time 
consumed by the last speaker would not be charged against the time of 
the other side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Since the gentleman was out of order, the Chair is not 
going to take the time out of the gentleman from Colorado. That would 
not be fair to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Certainly we would not wish to visit that upon the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  The CHAIRMAN. But the gentleman from Oklahoma is free to yield time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, it is truly sad when we see a display as 
the one we just saw. It is regrettable that the proponents of this 
amendment do not want to deal in fact.
  In point of fact, we are told the amendment does not apply to 
lobbyists. This town is knee deep in lobbyists for organizations that 
get grants and then turn around and use substantial portions of their 
money to oppose or influence legislation.
  Here in fact is the list of those organizations which get grants, and 
grants are gifts of taxpayers' money. Those grants, last year they got 
$163 million in gifts of taxpayers' money that we voted to give them, 
and they turned around and used their monies to lobby us.
  No one told you what the bill said. No one said?
  What it says is any one of those organizations can come and lobby. We 
have heard a dozen times from the other side that they cannot come and 
lobby. Every single one of those times we were being told an untruth. 
In point of fact, each of those organizations can come forward and 
spend up to 5 percent of their budget to lobby us, but let us talk 
about one.
  The National Council of Senior Citizens got $72 million last year, 
and they spent 95 percent of that money to lobby.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Skaggs amendment. 
Let me tell my colleagues the package we see on the floor is one of the 
most chilling pieces of legislation possibly in this century, and it is 
nothing less than a conspiracy to silence those who have politically 
and ideologically different views than the Republican majority.
  Because if that was not the case, then in fact what would happen is 
they would have included those who make a profit from the Federal 
Government and use that profit to come back and lobby the Federal 
Government for more. They would have included all the nonprofit 
organizations that support them, the informational ones that tell how 
the Members voted and now they will be rated here. Yet they get 
contributions that are tax deductible, equally as fungible.
  Even the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] in his testimony said 
both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is 
admitted through the tax system. Yet he excluded them from his piece of 
legislation which had to be included in an appropriations bill because 
it could not stand the daylight of scrutiny.
  Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 3 minutes 
and 45 seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. The gentleman from Colorado has the excess time 
remaining, is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has 4 minutes 
compared to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook's] 3 minutes 45 
seconds.
  Mr. SKAGGS. If only we were so precise in the drafting of this 
proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
[Mrs. Clayton].
  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, the political advocacy provisions of this 
bill found in title VI are both dangerous and perilous prescriptions 
for disaster. It is the most shameful, the most chilling piece of 
legislation under the name of reform. And particularly it is shameful 
to come from the party who has said we want to get the government off 
of our backs. Particularly it is shameful to come from the party who 
says we do not want more regulation.
  Who would be covered by this? Anybody who received Federal grants. Do 
we include the freedom of speech? Any college? Any nonprofit 
organization?
  This is not about reform. This is not really subjecting the fat cats. 
This is really chilling because they want to silence the little voices, 
those who speak for the average person, those who speak for the little 
person should feel 

[[Page H 8395]]
they have no longer a voice in this democracy. Shame on you.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to share, since Members have mentioned the 
U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional issues, in 1983 the U.S. Supreme 
Court wrote, legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a 
right does not infringe on that right. Congress has the authority to 
determine if the advantage the public receives is worth the money it 
pays to subsidize it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Dickey].
  (Mr. DICKEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Chairman, the question is power. Power is flowing 
from over there, away from over there, and that is why we have such a 
tremendous reaction. All we are saying is we do not want the power 
players who respond and support you as candidates. We want to stop 
that, because the American people do not want that to happen.
  We understand that we could wait, and this thing would flow, and we 
would get the same support that you all would get, but it is corruption 
when we do it with Federal dollars. It is corruption, and we do not 
want it.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
frightening language in the appropriations bill and in support of the 
Skaggs amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Meek].
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something. You 
better be careful of the Istook amendment. You think it is going to be 
good for you. It is going to be poisonous.
  First of all, it is drafted very poorly. It does not define anything. 
An elementary drafting person could do a better job, because you would 
know what he meant.
  You do not know what grant means. You do not know what contract 
means. Nothing in this thing says so.
  Another thing you are not looking at. This bill keeps the grantee 
from using his or her own private funds.
  I get letters every day. I had a letter from a farmer in my district, 
and I want to say to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook], do not 
mess with my farmers. They will write me a letter and in that letter 
they use their own funds to write me.
  If this amendment were to pass, this would be a form that would be 
wrong under the Istook bill. So you be careful. How would you treat 
them differently? Suppose right now we spend a lot of money here 
allowing the big companies to come in and talk to us?
  My friend, chairperson of the committee, showed I am showing a very 
big firm that lobbies me. They spent this amount of money to lobby. Is 
this fair?
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Skaggs amendment 
and opposed to the Istook language.
  Why do the Gingrich Republicans fear free speech?
  Six screwballs burned the American flag last year and these so-called 
conservatives want to amend the Bill of Rights for the first 5 in over 
200 years.
  Garrison Keillor needles them on public radio and these rightwingers 
run to eliminate public broadcasting.
  And now this Istook proposal to muzzle political rhetoric for 
organizations he finds objectionable.
  But these conservatives know full well that after all these voices 
are silenced their special interest friends, their big business 
buddies, will still be politically articulate.
  Big business will have a bigger voice and the average American will 
lower their voice to conservatives supposedly committed to strict 
construction of the Constitution.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield a half minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], our distinguished ranking member on the full 
committee.
                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OBEY. This has nothing to do with the majority party's desire to 
curb lobbyists. It has everything to do with the desire to stifle 
expression on the part of the new authoritarians who control this 
House. Their amendment does not apply to corporate lobbyists who can do 
full page ads telling us every day to spend $50, $60, $70 billion of 
taxpayers' money on airplanes we do not need while we are trying to 
starve our own folks. We should be ashamed of ourselves. This amendment 
is an absolute joke and it is a disgrace to the Congress.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook] for yielding me time.
  Colleagues, the 1994 elections were about change, but it is clear 
from the discussion in this Chamber tonight that the old habits die 
hard. We came here to change government, and despite the rhetoric we 
have heard this evening from the other side, the existing language in 
the appropriation bill does not affect the Red Cross, it does not 
affect the YMCA, it does not affect the churches and other genuine 
charitable organizations. They are not affected. They do not spend 5 
percent of their time lobbying the Federal Government doing inside 
activities. They are genuine charitable organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, for those who are tired of business as usual, of having 
tax dollars go to special interest groups who come back here and try to 
funnel back that money to the group giving them money in the first 
place, this is our time, this is our moment. Let us defeat this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 2 minutes 
15 seconds remaining, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] has 1\1/
2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] has 
the right to close.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time.
  Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the American Red Cross would be affected, and 
there is no better example of the perverse application of this very 
ill-conceived idea than that. They have written to all of us saying 
that they fear the consequences of this amendment and how it would 
impede the effective carrying out of their very important mission.
  This does not just affect organizations spending 5 percent of their 
own private funds, it affects them if they spend one dime on political 
activity. Every one will have to come in and go through the rigmarole 
of reporting and participating in the incredible proposition of a 
national political database, maintained by the Federal Government. The 
Founding Fathers must be revolted at the very concept.
  Mr. Chairman, if we want such a big brother operation, with a 
Washington, DC computer keeping track of political activity in this 
country, vote against this amendment. If we believe in the land of the 
free, in which we should welcome the full-voiced participation in the 
political debate of this country by every American without fear of 
intimidation, vote yes for this amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman for Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  (Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding and I am 
strongly opposed to this amendment.
  First, let me congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma for drafting 
this provision, and the Appropriations Committee for including this in 
the bill.
  Here's the bottom line. If the Skaggs amendment passes, taxpayer 
funds will keep on flowing to lobbyists, pressure groups, and other 
special interests.
  The American people voted last fall for change. One change that every 
taxpayer deserves is to keep his tax dollars out of the lobbyist's 
pockets.
  If anything, the bill does not go far enough. I think this should 
apply to Federal agencies as well.
  When we were working on reform of our bloated foreign aid 
bureaucracy. We caught AID red-handed, trying to block our bill.

[[Page H 8396]]

  So I view this title as just a first step.
  Let's defeat the Skaggs amendment, let's pass this ban on taxpayer 
funds for lobbyists, and then let's take the next step and shut down 
the lobbying at the Federal agencies, who are working overtime to block 
the people's agenda.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Skaggs 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich provision 
in H.R. 2127, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, and to oppose the Skaggs 
amendment to strike.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee who serves on the Labor, 
HHS and Education Subcommittee, I was pleased to support the inclusion 
of this important amendment when Mr. Istook offered it at the full 
committee markup. The Appropriations Committee debated this measure 
fully and sent it on to the full House following a recorded vote of 28 
to 20.
  Mr. Speaker, the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich amendment provides that any 
nonprofit or charity which receives Federal grants certify at year's 
end that it has not spent more than 5 percent of its entire budget on 
political advocacy or lobbying. The Office of Management and Budget is 
directed to produce a single form which will be acceptable for all 
grantees to submit to the General Accounting Office [GAO] and to the 
grant making agency or department once a year.
  There is no reason for any charity to spend a large percentage of its 
annual budget on lobbying if the charity receives Federal taxpayer 
funding in the form of grants. I urge you to oppose the Skaggs 
amendment, and support the retention of the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich 
language in this Labor, HHS appropriations bill before us today.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of the time to the 
majority leader, the gentleman from the lone star State of Texas [Mr. 
Armey].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 2 minutes 
and 15 seconds.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. 
Istook], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], and the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Ehrlich] for the offering of this important 
legislation.
  This is good legislation, well drafted, well thought out, carefully 
balanced. It represents the best work of the best legal minds on this 
subject, and if we pass it today it will be a great day for the 
taxpayers of this country. If this language is about anything, it is 
about cleaning up the way this House works and the way this city works. 
The first step in cleaning up Washington must be to end the practice of 
special interests using taxpayers' dollars to lobby for still more 
taxpayers' dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, we are not breaking new ground here, we are building on 
existing law; and, indeed, the existing law was originally crafted by 
the senior Senator from West Virginia. However broadly Senator Byrd's 
views differ from my own, he and I share this: We share a determination 
to keep the spending process honest. We both believe the practice of 
federally
 subsidizing a solicitation of further Federal subsidies is wrong.

  Ladies and gentlemen, any idea on which Robert Byrd and Dick Armey 
agree on must surely qualify as a self-evident truth. In 1990, Senator 
Byrd added an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill designed to 
end taxpayer finance advocacy. It was a small step, and not a wholly 
successful one, but it was a step. So today we come to build on that 
step. Our friends on the other side of the aisle should join us in this 
effort, not oppose it.
  This legislation does not just save the taxpayers potentially 
billions of dollars, it also sends a powerful message to the special 
interests who occupy so much office space in this city. The bill says 
something I think the American people would regard as common sense: 
Government should assist the needy, not those whose business it is to 
lobby the government in the name of the needy.
  Mr. Chairman, despite what some of our opponents have said, let us 
remember that this language is content neutral. It applies equally to 
the left and to the right. It hits both the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
and Greenpeace. We are not favoring any special interest, we are 
imposing openness and honesty on all special interests in order to 
benefit the public interest.
  This debate is about reform. It is about making this government 
honest so that the American people might again be able to trust their 
Government. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment from the 
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] and support the Istook-McIntosh 
rider and end welfare for lobbyists. Let us tell those who would 
advocate for more money for themselves with the public's money, do it 
on your own time and your own dime. Vote ``no'' for the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 232, not voting 16, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 622]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--232

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock

[[Page H 8397]]

     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Chenoweth
     Dooley
     Filner
     Holden
     Manton
     McDade
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Towns
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Young (AK)
                              {time}  2110

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Filner for, with Mrs. Chenoweth against.

  Mr. ZIMMER and Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. BEVILL and Mr. SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                             {time}   2115


                    amendment offered by mr. saxton

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on behalf of the 
gentleman from Virginia Mr. BATEMAN.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Saxton: Page 88, after line 7, 
     insert the following new title;

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the aggregate amount made available from 
     the general fund for ``Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention--Disease Control, Research, and Training'', 
     reducing the amount made available for ``Administration for 
     Children and Families--Refugee and Entrant Assistance'', and 
     increasing the aggregate amount made available for ``Impact 
     Aid'' (and the portion of such amount made available for 
     basic support payments under section 8003(b)), by 
     $10,000,000, $25,691,000, and $22,000,000, respectively.

  Mr. SAXTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995. The gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will be recognized for 10 minutes in 
support of his amendment, and a Member in opposition will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Sexton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purposes of offering this amendment, and 
to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. 
Christensen], and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], and then I 
will ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I have offered on behalf of the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] is an amendment which the 
gentleman from Virginia has worked long and hard over the last months 
to bring about. Unfortunately, as we all know, the gentleman from 
Virginia is home recuperating today from an illness, so on behalf of 
the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment that is pending, offered on behalf of the 
gentleman from Virginia, would transfer $22 million to impact aid, 
providing a total of $667 million for fiscal year 1996. The Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill, when combined with the $35 million in 
the fiscal year 1996 DOD appropriations bill, would provide $702 
million for impact aid, 96.4 percent of last year's level.
  I would like to yield to the distinguished chairman to solicit his 
views on our goal of providing no less than 96 percent of last year's 
level, and possibly as much as 98 percent of last year's funding level, 
to impact aid for fiscal year 1996. The Labor-HHS-Education conference 
report, including $35 million of fiscal year 1996 DOD appropriations in 
the conference report, is what we are interested in.
  I would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee for his thoughts 
as to the outcome which he will seek through the conference and the 
conference report.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would assure both the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who 
cannot be with us, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the 
cosponsor of the amendment, that I will make every effort to work to 
insist that the impact aid funding level provided in the fiscal year 
1996 Labor-HHS and Education appropriations conference report, when 
combined with the $35 million in the DOD appropriations conference 
report, will equal no less than 96 percent of last year's funding 
level, a total of $728 million.
  That would represent a provision of no less than $664 million for 
impact aid through this bill and the remainder in the DOD bill, and I 
am sure the gentleman recognizes that this is a subject in which I have 
a great personal interest, as well.
  Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, while I would have preferred that the $83 million in 
cuts in this bill to impact aid, which supports the education of 
military children, while I would wish those cuts had been zeroed out by 
tonight, I respect the commitment of the chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and 
the distinguished majority leader for saying that these cuts will be 
zeroed out or at least brought back to the point where impact aid 
funding this year will approach 96 to 98 percent of the previous fiscal 
year's funding level.
  I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the distinguished majority leader a 
question, if I could; specifically, if for any reason in the defense 
appropriations conference committee bill, for any reason in the defense 
appropriations conference committee bill that $35 million we added back 
in the House is reduced or zeroed out, is it still the good faith 
commitment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to see that impact aid children will 
receive 96 to 98 percent of the Federal 1995 funding level?
  Mr. PORTER. If the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] will 
continue to yield, I will tell the gentleman, I will do my best to see 
that it happens, yes.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the majority 
leader for helping with our military families. Education is very 
important, and in light of the fact that we are tightening the belt, I 
want to thank the subcommittee chairman for really going to bat for our 
military families and for their education.
  I also want to thank my friend on the other side of the aisle, the 
gentleman 

[[Page H 8398]]
from Texas [Mr. Edwards] for all his hard work; he has worked 
arduously, worked hard, and worked with a strong belief. It has been a 
team effort, a bipartisan effort. I just want to also thank the 
gentleman from Virginia, [Herb Bateman] who is not here tonight, but we 
are committed on this, and we want to thank everybody for their hard 
work.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas, the majority leader, for his cooperation throughout the day and 
over the past months on this issue.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who 
I am sure is tuned into this matter as he is recuperating at home, and 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], and I would also like to assure 
the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and I assume, I hope it 
will comply with the intent of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton], when I say that I support the proposal to provide no less 
than $664 million for impact aid in the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations conference report, and no less than $35 
million of the fiscal year 1996 DOD appropriations conference report. 
This represents a sum that is no less than 96 percent of last year's 
funding level.
  It is my goal, working with all the members of the conference, to 
secure fiscal year 1996 funding of no less than 98 percent of last 
year's funding level for impact aid. I am very confident that with the 
best efforts that we all make, that we should have some success and can 
be optimistic about achieving that goal. I want to thank all the 
gentlemen for their efforts on behalf of this colloquy, and, certainly, 
I appreciate the spirit of cooperation we enjoyed all day long.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to, of course, thank the 
majority leader for his comments. I would like to associate myself with 
the statement made by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards]. This is 
of extreme importance to military families all across the Nation. I 
thank him for his diligence and efforts on this behalf.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once more, I 
would also like to particularly express my thanks to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for lending his full support to this 
endeavor from the very beginning and for working so skillfully behind 
the scenes, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] for his keen interest and diligence in seeing this 
through, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] who also was a key 
player behind the scenes as well as publicly. In addition to the 
gentlemen who have already spoken, I think we all owe a special, 
special expression of gratitude to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bateman], who, despite a recent illness, has made an absolutely 
Herculean effort on behalf of the children of military families. The 
constituents of the gentleman from Virginia owe him a debt of thanks, 
and all military families throughout America owe him a debt of thanks. 
I would like to take this time to express my personal appreciation for 
his leadership on this effort.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, it is my intent to ask that the amendment 
be withdrawn, and we had hoped to be able to conclude this colloquy in 
5 minutes or less. We are currently over that. I know that there are 
many people who feel deeply about this subject, and the fact of the 
matter is we are not going to take any action tonight on this, so they 
will be permitted to submit their statements for the Record in writing.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] for 
their efforts on this behalf, and point out how important it is to make 
sure we have additional funds for impact aid.
  We have a situation in Monmouth County, which I represent, where some 
of the towns now have such a gap, if you will, between the actual cost 
of educating military children and what they actually receive in impact 
aid that it has actually become a major problem, to the point where the 
boards of education in some of the towns are actually saying that they 
do not want the military families anymore, because they are not getting 
sufficient impact aid.
  I hate to see a situation where we get to that point. I think it is 
important for us to continue to provide adequate funding so there is 
some relationship between the actual cost of education for military 
children and actually what the Federal Government provides. I thank the 
gentleman again.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 88, after line 7, 
     insert the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     made available to any institution of higher education when it 
     is made known to the Federal official have authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that--
       (1) any amount, derived from compulsory fees (such as 
     mandatory nonrefundable fees, mandatory/waivable refundable 
     fees, and negative cheekoffs), compulsory student activity 
     fees, or other compulsory charges to students, is used for 
     the support of any organization or group that is engaged in 
     lobbying or seeking to influence public policy or political 
     campaigns; and
       (2) such support is other than--
       (A) the direct or indirect support of the recognized 
     student government, official student newspaper, officials and 
     full-time faculty, or trade associations, of an institution 
     of higher education; or
       (B) the indirect support of any voluntary student 
     organization at such institutions.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, almost two centuries ago Thomas Jefferson, the founder 
of the Democrat Party, said this: ``To compel a man to furnish 
contributions of money for the propagation of opinions in which he 
disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' That was Thomas Jefferson, and 
that is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this students' rights amendment 
aimed at protecting the political self-expression of college students 
by prohibiting any direct Federal funds to colleges and universities 
that subsidize political groups through compulsory student activities 
through negative check-off provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, groups like PIRG, Members all know who they are, will 
ask, ``How can you possibly define a student political group?'' That is 
easy. Political organizations or political groups are defined very 
clearly as groups whose primary activity is seeking to influence public 
policy or political campaigns. This definition is taken straight out of 
section 501(h) of the Tax Code.
  Mr. Chairman, on many college campuses the funding of PIRG is 
obtained through a negative check-off system on the tuition bills of 
students, including my own children. At some universities, including 
New York State college campuses, the fees are mandatory and 
nonrefundable. This means that many students are being coerced into 
funding political groups whose fundamental political philosophies and 
activities are totally contrary to their own.

[[Page H 8399]]

  This is wrong, and my amendment would put an and to it by prohibiting 
negative check-offs, but allowing positive check-offs. It is as simple 
as that. That is what this amendment is all about.
                              {time}  2130

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment exempts from this limitation the 
recognized student government and student newspaper on campus as well 
as all university officials and all full-time faculty of the 
institution. The amendment is narrowly drawn in order not to impinge in 
any way on political speech on campuses, fund-raising activities by 
political groups or political activity of any kind.
  Nothing in this legislation prohibits any person from raising money 
or engaging in political activity on or off campus. They can solicit 
contributions just like any other organization.
  Mr. Chairman, the hysterical response from Nader's PIRGs around here, 
and you see them running up and down the subways--maybe we ought to 
extend this lobby ban to include the subway downstars--many of the 
PIRGs around the country underscores the need for the Solomon 
amendment. Rather than being a gag rule as they maintain, it attempts 
to curb the coercive funding methods that are used to take money from 
unsuspecting or otherwise unwilling students and parents to fund their 
political and their lobbying efforts.
  I say, let them raise their money like any other organization Mr. 
Nader. Members, if your constituents, parents and students, want to 
support PIRG or any other organization like the Democratic Party, like 
the Republican Party, they have every opportunity to contribute 
voluntarily or where allowed, in most campuses, to make a positive 
checkoff which could be for PIRG, for the Democrat Party, for the 
Republican Party, or Mr. Perot or anybody else.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been going on for 20 years now, and these 
compulsory funding schemes have bilked tens of millions of dollars out 
of my constituents and yours. Ten million dollars this year alone.
  Here is an article from the Wall Street Journal by John R. Silber, a 
very, very prestigious former president of Boston University. He 
describes this sordid practice which he says is rampant on some 
colleges throughout this Nation.
  He points out that PIRGs are organized by States with local chapters, 
on individual campuses, not primarily for educational purposes but for 
political advocacy, such as being--and listen to this, would you--a 
plaintiff in the United States Supreme Court case opposing the Solomon 
amendment back in 1983 which
 denied Federal aid to students who refused to obey the law and 
register for the draft.

  In another case, of blatantly supporting the political campaign for 
President of former Senator Gary Hart. My kids were forced to 
contribute to Senator Hart's campaign. That is what this is all about.
  Please also read the article by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe this 
week. I quote:
  ``It ought not take an act of Congress to stop Nader's raid on 
college tuition payments. But millions of those payments are subsidized 
with Federal loans and grants. Congress is entitled to insist that the 
money it appropriates for education be used for education, not for 
special-interest lobbying. If college presidents cannot be counted on 
to ensure basic fairness, and if Governor Christie Whitman of New 
Jersey''--who just enacted this law there--``is the only governor in 
America tough enough to brave Ralph Nader's slanders, then the time has 
come for Congress to act.''
  That is what John Silber, a Democrat, president of Boston University, 
has said.
  Fellow Members of Congress, do something for these parents and these 
students that they cannot do for themselves. Support the Solomon 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about Ralph Nader. I would need more 
fingers to count the arguments that I have had with Ralph Nader. This 
goes far beyond the so-called PIRG issue. This simply prohibits 
colleges from supporting any activity to influence public policy with 
fees collected from students in any way. That does not just include the 
kind of mandatory fees the gentleman was talking about. It also 
includes tuition itself. You could not support any activity that 
included debate on campus about a public policy issue. You could not 
inform students about public policy issues that affected those 
students. It would even probably apply to college support for student 
newspapers if they editorialized on public policy. It would prohibit 
the holding of public policy forums, even if positions were not taken.
  I would call this instead the Paperwork Enhancement Act of 1995. It 
would require the Secretary to develop a process to permit complaints 
to be filed with the Secretary, to allow institutions to respond to 
complaints, to adjudge complaints, and to permit decisions to be 
appealed. The regulations
 would have to define criteria that allowed institutions to pick and 
choose which groups are educational and which are seeking to influence 
public policy. I invite you to define that line.

  I really think that what this does is just go counter to the very 
idea of what a university is supposed to do and supposed to be. It even 
prevents on-campus discussion of public policy paid for with tuition.
  I guess what I would really say is, this amendment so fits into the 
already existent extremism of the bill that it is perfectly fitting 
that the amendment be offered to this bill. If that is the philosophy 
of the majority party, then indeed go ahead and adopt it. It simply 
makes a bad bill a whole lot worse and it makes it a lot easier to vote 
against.
  But with all due respect, I would think there are enough people on 
this side of the aisle who care about the right of individual 
expression, of student expression, the right of academic freedom, the 
right indeed for a university to be a place where you sift and winnow 
and give people an educational experience. But having seen some of the 
extreme propositions already added to this bill, I am not in the least 
bit surprised. It is here and I would be shocked, I guess, if it is not 
adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman must have been reading from 
a different amendment. This is identical to the New Jersey law just 
passed by Governor Whitman and their legislature.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen].
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon amendment. The 
question before us tonight is simple. Should students and parents 
decide how to spend their money, or should political organizations be 
allowed to covertly siphon dollars from students and parents for 
agendas they do not espouse?
  In New Jersey, the choice was obvious. This March Governor Whiteman 
signed a bill that does exactly what the Solomon amendment would do. 
The Governor said the following: ``PIRG is the only one, the only 
organization in the country we could find that has enjoyed this kind of 
negative checkoff.''
  But New Jersey PIRG found a loophole. They were so fearful of losing 
their funding bonanza that they devised a plan to get around the law. 
Unfortunately, a State judge approved the plan, so this fall thousands 
of people will again be hoodwinked into donating to a cause they may 
not agree with.
  My friend Alex DeCroce, and assemblyman from New Jersey, wrote me a 
letter which I have here today. It says:

       A broad based Federal standard enacted this fall to 
     eliminate the negative checkoff would resolve our dilemma in 
     New Jersey and give public institutions across the Nation the 
     ability to protect consumers.

  Mr. Chairman, we have all heard the great weeping and gnashing of 
teeth from opponents of this amendment. Why are they so frightened? If 
these agendas are so important, they should have no trouble in raising 
money through voluntary contributions.
  This amendment is all about free speech. It restores the rights of 
students and parents to decide what 

[[Page H 8400]]
causes they wish to support. I strongly support the Solomon amendment 
and urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for inclusion in the Record the letter I 
received from Assemblyman DeCroce:

                                 0New Jersey General Assembly,

                                 Morris Plains, NJ, July 28, 1995.
     Hon. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen,
     House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Frelinghuysen: I am very pleased to 
     learn that the US Congress is willing to tackle the 
     ``negative check-off'' issue that unfairly burdens many of 
     our students and their families. As the sponsor of A-380, the 
     New Jersey legislation which addressed that issue, I was 
     jubilant when the bill passed both the General Assembly and 
     the Senate and less than 24 hours later was signed by 
     Governor Whitman.
       Unfortunately, on July 5, 1995, a Superior Court judge 
     decided that the NJ PIRG plan to separate their lobbying 
     efforts from their educational functions, which was devised 
     to circumvent the new law, was found to be acceptable. This 
     means that the Fall, 1995 student tuition bills for Rutgers, 
     The State University of New Jersey, include a negative check-
     off for NJ PIRG.
       Once we have resolved this issue in New Jersey, which we 
     intend to do, our constituents attending school in other 
     states can still fall prey to the negative check-off. A broad 
     based federal standard enacted this fall to eliminate the 
     negative check-off would resolve our dilemma in New Jersey 
     and give public institutions across the nation the ability to 
     protect consumers.
       Under separate cover you will receive my complete file on 
     A-380. I am anxious to work with you to see a resolution to 
     this issue. My personal best wishes.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Alex DeCroce.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio].
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the campus gag rule, 
which the Solomon amendment encompasses. Mr. Chairman, this is the 
Congress of devolution. We are being told relentlessly day after day 
that we should shift back to the Government that is closest to the 
people the responsibility for self-Government.
  Here is a good example of where, when we discover we are not happy 
with some decisions made at the level of Government closest to the 
students in this country, on the campus, we are going to intervene and 
somehow reverse our thrust and go back in the direction of imposing a 
standard from the Federal level on every campus institution across this 
country.
  This is really thin skinned of us. Obviously students are people who 
at their level of development have many different views that clash with 
the established view. Many of us will be picketed on campuses because 
we are for the moment politically incorrect.
  What are we doing here? We are speaking out in a way that only we 
have the authority to stifle that
 dissent. I think it is really shameful that we would be so thin 
skinned that we cannot stand the battle of ideas in the marketplace 
that a campus represents in our society.

  We should be encouraging young people to be involved in their self-
government. We should be encouraging them to enter into the debate. We 
have so many sitting on the sidelines who do not have the interest, let 
alone the initiative, to start taking on the responsibility of self-
government.
  What are we doing here? We are simply telling student governments 
around the country who they can and cannot fund. In our zeal to get at 
one group, the public interest research groups, because we do not like 
their lineage--and I share the problems the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey] has with the great Mr. Nader--we have overshot the mark.
  We have hit organizations across the spectrum, pro-life groups and 
pro-choice groups, all kinds of groups, students working at Amnesty 
International, students working in Habitat for Humanity, students 
involved in hunger issues. Any kind of activism which has benefited 
from the decision of a student government to fund their activities has 
been swept up into this gag rule amendment.
  This is something we ought to repudiate in the context of what so 
many of us have said as we paraphrase Voltaire: ``I disapprove of what 
you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'' That is 
a pretty basic tenet of democracy.
  There is nothing here that avoids the fact that we want to be big 
government nannyist censors. We want to tell people what they can join, 
what they can be involved in and how they can, in their own self-
government on these campuses, decide to fund them. It is not the right 
time, it is the wrong time for us to enter into this. It ought to be 
put to death on a bipartisan basis, as it was in committee, after an 
extensive debate on a 2-to-1 bipartisan vote.
  I know there are many who will speak today in behalf of academic 
freedom. I think we are just simply asking for young people to be able 
to exercise their basic right to a representative form of democracy.
  Vote down the Solomon gag rule amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more. I think that in the 
amendment, the authors of this amendment are saying more about their 
credibility than they are about the students' credibility.
  The fact of the matter is that our higher education institutions are 
the crucible of democracy in this Nation. Democracy is not something 
that we grow up with in the sense it is something that has to be 
learned. These institutions are a strength and they are in fact 
teaching that. It is this locus that we are interfering with, we are 
getting involved with.
  I hope this House will overwhelmingly reject the amendment and I 
commend the gentleman from California for his statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Solomon amendment for several 
reasons.
  Advocates of this amendment label free speech and political 
activities as lobbying; the real problem is that we need more 
involvement, not less. What the amendment advocates are saying is that, 
``We don't want people involved.'' Non-profits, student groups by any 
definition are the voice of the American people not the special 
interests, not the big money political--quite the contrary.
  This amendment is a blatant attack on the U.S. Constitution and every 
American's right of free speech. This amendment takes away that right 
from a highly visable group of Americans, college students. If we start 
down the path of discriminating against college students, what group is 
next, where could you stop.
  Certainly it is the mission of a college or university to provide a 
marketplace for the free flow of ideas, and this extends beyond the 
confines of the classroom. Political lectures, debates, conference, 
research, and participation in politically active student groups, all 
offer important educational opportunities to college students. This 
amendment would impair such educational activities and in effect have a 
chilling effect upon the free discourse of our educational 
institutions.
  University and college campuses have a long tradition of providing 
students with opportunities to develop their civic interests, 
leadership skills, and responsible citizenship, and as a result, have 
produced many creative leaders. One of the reasons that many of my 
colleagues indeed are Members of this body today is because of the 
leadership opportunities that they were afforded in the higher 
education institutions across this Nation.
  Every generation of college students since America's independence 
have enjoyed the opportunity to participate in political organizations. 
This amendment will take away that opportunity that right from this 
generation of college students, and all generations to come. We should 
not deny them the freedom to participate that has been enjoyed by 
earlier American generations. This participation has been a hallmark of 
our society. Democracy and involvement is a process that must be 
learned. Our education institutions are naturally a locus of such 
experimentation and trial by young adults testing their skills. The 
competition of ideas that this House would fear such participation 
speaks to the Solomon amendments credibility not the students. I 
strongly oppose this amendment, a gag rule attempt to rewrite the U.S. 
Constitution which would impair the crucible of our Nation's democracy 

[[Page H 8401]]
and strengthen, our educational system and future generations of 
American citizens.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, as I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California to rebut the gentleman from California, let me yield 
myself 30 seconds first to tell my good friend, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Fazio], we are going to a free market system. That is 
what the Solomon amendment does.
  Let me just tell the gentleman something, that we give them the right 
to contribute to every one of those, but it is done voluntarily by the 
student, not forced down their throats by the State government in 
California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from California [Mrs. Seastrand], and she will rebut what the gentleman 
had to say.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon 
amendment. The amendment protects student rights and student beliefs 
from being misrepresented.
  It also protects the American taxpayer from furnishing hard-earned 
tax dollars from being used to finance political organizations, 
regardless of whether the American taxpayer supports, opposes, or is 
indifferent to the viewpoints held by these organizations.
  Our responsibilities as Members of Congress is to ensure the American 
people that the Federal Government is spending their tax dollars wisely 
on necessary programs. Federal funds being contributed to political 
organizations such as the College Republicans, College Democrats, or 
the PIRG, the public interest research groups, throughout the country 
is not wise and they are not necessary programs for the Federal 
Government to cover even if we did not have to contend with an almost 
$5 trillion Federal debt.
  Opponents of this amendment are referring to it as a ``student gag 
rule.'' Do not be deceived by this. This amendment would in no way 
prohibit
 political organizations from soliciting either financial or political 
activity assistance from college students, nor would it prevent 
students from voluntarily contributing to the political organizations 
of their choice. It merely protects students from being forced into 
funding these activities through their tuition bills.

  In addition, the amendment provides an exemption for all officials of 
the universities that recognize student government and the official 
student newspaper on campus. This amendment ensures that all university 
officials and the student government are free to engage in lobbying 
activity, as is their fundamental right in a democratic society.
  The fact of the matter is that the false gag rule perception is being 
spread by many of the PIRG's, the public interest research groups, 
lobbying this issue with Federal funds they received by students in 
mandatory, nonrefundable, and negative check-off fees from college 
student tuition bills.
  Again, I would say this is a misuse of taxpayers' money and should no 
longer be allowed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to follow up on what the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] said, and I have a great 
deal of respect for her, but it is not really accurate that this 
amendment is dealing with the issue of Federal funds going to the 
student groups.
  What the amendment does essentially is to say that the university 
will not be able to receive or utilize Federal funds that it gets for 
almost every purpose if it allows students to organize and by majority 
vote decide to have a referendum where an assessment is put on the 
students which individual students can get out of. That is what the 
amendment says.
  It is a very broad brush here. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey] pointed out, and I am glad the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] is willing to admit that basically he is trying to go after 
the native group or the PIRG group here, but if you look at the 
amendment, what it says, it paints a very broad
 brush.

  It is going to make it very difficult for student groups that want to 
speak out, and it puts in effect a gag on these student groups and 
punishes the university if they simply let a referendum take place 
where student activities are assessed for a particular purpose or 
organization.
  This is not compulsory. There is nothing to prevent individual 
students from checking off that they do not want to participate and do 
not want to contribute their funds. It is strictly voluntary. To make 
such a distinction between a negative and a positive check-off in my 
mind makes no sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Frelinghuysen] for what he said, but the bottom line is this has 
already had a very negative impact in New Jersey on the ability of 
student groups to organize and to speak out and exercise their First 
Amendment rights.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, this is indeed a dangerous amendment and 
when you put it in the context of what we have been through this 
Congress, it is even more frightening.
  We started this Congress by having the research arm of our party, the 
Democratic Study Group, shut down. We then marched to shutting down the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the 
Women's Caucus.
  Then the Republican extremists decided this institution knows no 
bounds. They went outside the institution and began to shut down the 
Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the 
Arts, and now they are marching to campuses to take on young men and 
women who we encourage every day on this floor to participate in their 
government, and they are trying to shut them down.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a shameful amendment. I encourage each and 
every one of my colleagues to vote against this and let the citadel of 
free expression in our society, the university, the colleges, the 
campuses, allow them to flourish in the historic context in which they 
have been made great throughout the centuries.
  What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of from students 
expressing their free will and their views and their thoughts? Vote 
``no'' on the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
made the same argument 13 years ago about the first Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Wicker], a freshman Member of this body.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding me the time.
  I certainly rise in support of the Solomon amendment. When Mr. 
Solomon began his remarks, I believe I heard him say that you would 
hear some hysteria tonight from the opponents of this amendment and I 
think now we know exactly what the gentleman from New York was 
referring to.
  I have not been here long, but I have learned that when you are 
opposed to an amendment or to a concept here in the House of 
Representatives, you get up and say it is a ``gag rule.'' You throw out 
terms like ``dangerous'' and ``chilling.'' You say it is an attack on 
the First Amendment and on free speech. Nothing could be further from 
the truth in this case.
  It is also important that we actually read the amendment and correct 
some of the misstatements that have been made tonight. Student 
governments are excepted from this amendment. Student newspapers are 
not affected by this amendment. Officials and faculties are 
specifically, by the wording of the amendment, not subject to the 
language of the amendment.
  Now, back several years ago when I was in college, I was a campus 
activist. You might find that surprising, but I was involved in campus 
politics. I believe political discourse should flourish at colleges and 
universities, but I think what organizations ought to actually do is 
set up a table during registration and collect dues. What this 
amendment does is go farther than that. It says these campus groups can 
have a positive check-off. The crux of the amendment is this: Should we 
compel students to contribute money to an organization they do not 
believe in? Should we compel students to contribute 

[[Page H 8402]]
money to a point of view they do not support?
  I say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members of this House, such 
practices are wrong. That is what this amendment is about. I urge a 
``yes'' vote on the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, we are being told that we do not have time 
to debate the telecommunications bill in the light of day, so the U.S. 
Congress can debate whether or not students on campus have the right to 
be able to organize student activities any way that they want. That is 
what we are taking time out here in the U.S. Congress to do.
  Now, every one of these activities has been authorized either by the 
State legislature, the university officials, or by the students 
themselves. They have determined in each one of these States how they 
want to have these activities on their own campuses conducted.
  In about 4 hours, we are going to have a vote that the majority 
opposes that is going to give parents the right to be able to block 
violence that is invading their living rooms for their adolescent 
children. Many on the majority side are opposed to the Government 
intervening there, and yet here we are with the majority telling us 
their 18- to 20-year-old sons and daughters on campus cannot make up 
their own mind on how they want to organize to ensure that they have a 
public interest activity that they are able to advance as they see fit.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, yielding myself 15 seconds, I will say to 
my good friend from Massachusetts, did you ever hear of Senator Stan 
Rosenbaum and Representative Paul E. Carin, two prominent Democrats in 
the State legislature of Massachusetts? They want to end compulsory 
student fees because they gag students. You ought to talk to them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Kingston], a very distinguished Member.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the previous speaker: This 
is a ``no brainer.'' If our constituents were watching this, but they 
are probably doing something a little more intellectually challenging 
like watching Gilligan's Island reruns, they would be appalled to think 
that we can look them in the eye and say, ``Yes, it is fair that you 
work all your life to write a $2,000 tuition check to the university of 
your choice and part of that money goes to a special interest group and 
the only way you can get it back is to file something like a tax return 
and then you get your money back.'' That is absurd.
  If PIRG and all these groups that are benefiting from them are good, 
let them compete just like the College Democrats and the College 
Republicans do. All day long we have heard from the left that this bill 
is bad for students, bad for parents, hurts college tuition. If you 
want to help college tuition, vote for the Solomon amendment and 
restore some of that tuition.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] mentioned Senator Stanley Rosenbaum. It is Rosenburg. 
That may not be an important difference to you. The point is they are 
State legislatures. You mentioned a State Senator and a State 
representative. You said before, only one Government had the guts. That 
is the crux of it, the State legislatures. They should do it. You do 
not believe in States' rights. It is a phoney.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am glad you are with me.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, a little while ago, we dealt with Medicaid. 
It is a Federal program. The Federal Government pays 50 to 70 percent 
of the cost and the House voted to say that in the name of States' 
rights, a woman who has been raped or a woman who suffered from incest 
and become pregnant should not have funds available for an abortion.
  Now we are saying that in the university or a college, the Congress 
is going to tell them how they run their student fees. How ridiculous 
are we getting? Talk of arrogance of power.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] is right: If a governor 
wants to decide, a legislature, the board of regents, the student 
government. But all this talk of decentralization, all of a sudden we 
are trying to tell universities and collages how to run their student 
fees.

                             {time}   2200

  Let us stop it. Let us go on to serious debate.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, that gentleman was from Minnesota. His 
students were forced to give $250,000 to Ralph Nader.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Appleton, WI [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from yielding me this 
time.
  We were talking about arrogance of power. Let us take a look at this 
amendment.
  Many time this debate gets far afield. This amendment says this, and 
I quote, ``Prohibit the dissemination of Federal funds to institutions 
of higher learning when that institution uses compulsory fees for 
public policy, influence, or political campaigns,'' compulsory. 
Everyone in this House should be opposed to compulsory fees for 
lobbyists like Ralph Nader. I cannot believe anybody in this House 
would vote against this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for having the courage to propose 
an amendment like this. It is about time. For 40 years we have been 
going down this road of compulsory fees. It is about time we tell our 
students in the universities they do not have to knuckler under.
  This amendment is going to end welfare for Ralph Nader. That is 
enough for me to vote for this amendment.
  Now let this House say we have had enough of Ralph Nader, too, and 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn.]
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I had always thought Republicans believed in 
local control, and now suddenly we are believing that this Congress 
should be the big nanny of American higher education.
  Being a former university president with 300 students groups on the 
campus, I want to say that last thing we need to do is spend our time 
intruding on the private and the public universities of America.
  As an undergraduate, I went to a university where you could not have 
a political speaker on campus unless someone answered it, so when the 
Republican leader of the Senate came, we had a student assistant debate 
William F. Knowland. Now, that was Stanford University. Those days are 
over.
  When my son went there three decades later, if he did not like a 
group to whom the student body contributed, you could go in and get 
your 75 cents back or whatever the amount was.
  What this amendment will do is objected to by Arkansas Students for 
Life, Illinois Students for Life, student chapter of the National 
Wildlife Federation, the National Catholic Student Coalition.
  Let us stop the nonsense and let us turn this amendment down.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, what is the majority party afraid of today? 
First we seek to stifle not-for-profit groups. Now we seek to invade 
the free speech rights of students.
  Because this amendment is so vague, it would create a chilling effect 
on all speech in any college or university receiving Federal funds 
under this amendment. If a student group were to engage in activity 
that is interpreted by a Federal bureaucrat as an attempt to affect 
public policy, every student at the institution would risk losing 
Federal student loans. A student receiving credit for congressional 
internship programs supported by the university could put in jeopardy 
all the university 

[[Page H 8403]]
funding that benefits the students at that institution.
  Why are we dictating to the States, to the students, to the college 
administrations how they ought to use their funds, not the Federal 
funds, their funds?
  We have, in the arrogance of power, decided that we know best. We are 
going to tell every State Governor, every college, every student body 
what to do. That is not what I thought this was all about.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton], who looks like a student.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I think that perhaps I still look like a student because I 
need a haircut, thanks to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], with 
the schedule we have been on. We have not been able to see folks 
otherwise we would like to see.
  Mr. Chairman, I do remember well when I was a student, and I remember 
well paying into this fund, and you know what, I did not like it, and I 
could not get my money back, and that is wrong. That is wrong to force 
us to contribute to an organization that we may not be willing to 
support.
  As I understand it, this amendment provides a voluntary checkoff so 
that the student, he or she, can decide what they want and what they do 
not want. I think that is the fair way to go, and that is why I rise in 
support of this student-friendly amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have been about the 
business over the last few days in this Congress of saying if we do not 
agree with your views, we are going to find a way to penalize you. We 
are going to find a way to try to intimidate you. We are going to try 
to find a way to quite you, to shut you up. That is not America. That 
is beneath us.
  This amendment is beneath us. All of us know it is directed at the 
PIRG's, and all of us have had an opportunity to be annoyed by the 
PIRG's. But, very frankly, I am annoyed by a lot of people, and I am 
sure I annoy a lot of people, and that is the greatness of America. We 
get the opportunity to annoy one another.
  Let us continue that right in America.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes], a fellow New Yorker in the State where Ralph Nader 
gets $1 million.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  As a student at the State University of New York, I was required, and 
my parents were required, to pay a mandatory student fee. And from that 
fee, a nonrefundable mandatory fee, and part of that money was used to 
fund off-campus groups that had nothing to do with education.
  Great discussions over the last several months particularly have 
talked about choice. Well, what is wrong with allowing students the 
opportunity to choose and to write their own checks to their own 
special interest groups that they want to fund? Instead of forcing 
students to pay and their parents to pay fees that go to off-campus 
groups that have nothing to do with education, I would suggest that we 
support the Solomon amendment and give the right of choice back to the 
students.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the choices are being taken over by the 
Federal Government. Just look at what we have done this evening on this 
bill. The Federal Government is going to tell the schools, medical 
schools what they can and cannot teach. The Federal Government is going 
to say whether a woman will really have a choice for abortion if she is 
raped or is pregnant because of incest. The Federal Government is going 
to tell nonprofit groups they cannot express their own opinion. Now we 
are taking away the choice from universities and campuses to allow 
greater speech.
  We have heard over and over again tonight that the Republicans seem 
to want to silence one particular group on the campuses. That is not 
the American way.
  You are going to silence one group you disagree with. You are also 
going to silence some groups with whom you may agree.
  Let us have a diversity of opinions. Let us have a free marketplace 
of ideas.
  Those who called for free market economics ought to be for free 
market ideas as well.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have noted that repeatedly the gentleman 
from New York has stood up and made a rebuttal statement or a statement 
that does not pertain to the yielding of time or to the introduction of 
the next speaker. I would like to know if the rules of the House allow 
for that or whether or not all of those comments should be counted 
against his time or whether those are out of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will state that the time that the 
gentleman has used has been taken off of the time that he is allowed 
for his time on this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance, I say to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], I have to oppose his amendment.
  I came to Washington to fight against more power and decisionmaking 
coming from this Congress, and I just was very proud to vote with my 
colleagues a few minutes ago to end welfare for lobbyists.
  But I think this goes a little bit too far. If you do not like 
compulsory fees and how they are spent, you have other choices. You can 
work with student organizations to change the way those decisions are 
made. But I do not think we need to focus here in Washington to try to 
change it here from this Congress.
  It seems to me, in my judgment, are we now setting the standard for 
political correctness here from the House of Representatives, from 
Washington, DC? I do not think so.
  I highly respect my colleague from New York, but in my judgment, this 
goes too far.
  I remember my days as a student at Amherst College at the height of 
the antiwar movement. I was chairman of the Conservative Union. I 
remember, in those days, not getting a voice.
  I do not think these decisions ought to be measured from Washington. 
There ought to be other ways to change it.
  I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Cox], a member of the Republican leadership, 
speaking for the leadership for this amendment, our policy chairman.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of my 
colleagues for their cheerful demeanor at this time of night. The 
debate has been an interesting one to listen to, and it caused me to 
rise in support of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] because I 
have observed both as a student on campus that campus liberals and 
former campus liberals have difficulty distinguishing between other 
people's money and their own.
  What we are talking about in the Solomon amendment is whether or not 
Federal funds should be used to subsidize institutions that use 
compulsory fees for public policy influence or political campaigns, and 
that is wrong.
  When we do telecommunications, we are going to vote on a bill that 
outlaws slamming, that is, when a long-distance company calls you and 
says, ``Do you want to switch,'' and if you do not affirmatively say 
``no,'' they go ahead and switch you anyway. That is wrong. That is 
dishonest. That is illegal, and we are to fix it when we do telecom. It 
is wrong whether it is labor union dues that are spent against the 
wishes of labor union members to fund political campaigns they do not 
agree with, or students on campus whose dues are 

[[Page H 8404]]
taken without their affirmative consent.
  The same liberals who for years have regulated every aspect of 
American life with thousands of pages much legalese tell us now it is 
too complicated to let students check a box that, yes, they would like 
their money to go to a political campaign or political influence.
  The fact is it is easy, it is right, and it is fair. Vote for the 
Solomon amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just tell the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] for a 
minute, the gentleman says let the students correct it. I want you to 
go out and check the record that in every campus in America where the 
students have been given the right for a referendum, do you know what 
they have done? They have rejected mandatory activity fees. They have 
rejected the negative checkoffs, because they want the positive 
checkoff, the right to do it, and it was not just overwhelming. The 
smallest ratio was 75 percent rejecting mandatory activity fees. That 
is exactly what we are doing here. We are giving them that right, if 
they want the Federal dollars.
  This does not touch Pell grants and individual grants going to 
students. It is only to those universities that are depriving those 
students of the referendum to let them check off a positive checkoff. 
That is exactly what this amendment does. It does nothing else.
  I invite you all to come over here and read the amendment. If you 
want to do what is right for the students of this country, you vote 
``yes'' on the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time, 1\1/2\ 
minutes, to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what this debate is all 
about. Too many Members of this new Gingrich Republican Party are 
frightened by freedom of expression in the United States.
  Six screwballs to out and burn the American flag last year. The 
Gingrich Republicans come in and want to change the Bill of Rights for 
the first time in over 200 years. Garrison Keillor gets on public radio 
and needles them, and they decide to do away with the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting. A Congressman receives a few letters from advocacy 
groups he does not care for, he introduces an amendment to shut them 
down so they can no longer lobby Capitol Hill.

                              {time}  2215

  And now we have an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] which seeks to silence controversial discussions on 
college campuses, a place where we should encourage these discussions 
on the right and on the left. That is what America is all about.
  I say to my friends in the Republican Party, if your revolution is so 
right, so popular, so American do not be afraid of the court of public 
opinion. That is what America is all about.
  This amendment is not conservatism, it is elitism. Defeat this 
abomination. Defeat the Solomon amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This amendment is a Federal intrusion to the integrity of college and 
university campuses all around the country, and an attack to one of our 
most fundamental rights--the freedom of speech.
  Aptly termed the ``campus gag rule,'' this amendment assaults the 
freedom of speech of our students, faculty, staff, and all who want to 
participate in an exchange of ideas--in the very institutions where 
freedom of thought is supposed to flourish and be embraced.
  We cannot be expected to produce the leaders, the political thinkers, 
and civic-minded citizens of the future, if we stifle their ability to 
participate in discussions on issues and public policy that will shape 
their world of tomorrow. Participation, service, and activism enhances 
the educational experience of students, and sometimes inspires us to 
become involved in the very issues that affect our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment stilts the academic and intellectual 
freedom of some of our brightest citizens. And it only serve to further 
isolate our citizens from participating in the public policy 
discussions that influence their lives. I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. RICHARDSON. The Solomon amendment is noting but campus gag rule.
  This amendment adds an unprecedented level of Federal intrusion into 
local decision making.
  It prevents university and college campuses from being free to make 
their own decisions about how best to encourage a marketplace of ideas 
and opposing viewpoints.
  Our college students represent our best hope for developing the next 
leaders of this Nation. This amendment prevents students from entering 
into important debates and from pursuing campus activities which they 
believe in.
  The bottom line is that student's must have the ability to influence 
policy and must be allowed to get involved in issues that they support.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Solomon amendment.
                    Who Opposes the Campus Gag Rule?

 (The Solomon amendment to the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations 
                                 bill)

       National education organizations including: American 
     Association of State Colleges and Universities, American 
     Association of University Professors American Council on 
     Education, Association of American Universities.
       American Federation of Teachers, National Association of 
     State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, National 
     Education Association, National Association of Independent 
     Colleges and Universities.
       Over 50 national student and citizen groups including: 
     American Planning Association, Consumer Federation of 
     America, Environmental Defense Fund, Habitat for Humanity 
     International, National Catholic Student Coalition National 
     Catholic Student Coalition, National Student Campaign Against 
     Hunger and Homelessness.
       National Wildlife Federation, Oxfam America, People for the 
     American Way, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 
     Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington office, United States 
     Student Association (USSA).
       Over 100 local citizen groups including: Arkansas Students 
     for Life, Long Island Soundkeeper, Florida PIRG, Illinois 
     Citizens for Life, Sierra Club of Indiana.
       Hands Across New Jersey, Pennsylvania Council of Churches, 
     Consumers Union, Southwest Regional Office, United We Stand, 
     Texas, Watch Our Waterways.
       Over 100 local educators including: California State 
     University, Office of the Chancellor; University of 
     California, Office of the President; Central Baptist College, 
     Dean; The Regents of the University of Colorado; Connecticut 
     College, President; The American University, Chair Board of 
     Directors; Delta College, Dean; Emory University, President; 
     Illinois Community College Board, Executive Director; 
     Illinois Board of Regents, Chancellor; University of Maine 
     System, Chancellor; University of Mississippi, Chancellor; 
     Hastings College, President.
       Dartmouth College, President; University of New Hampshire, 
     President; Nassau Community College, President; University of 
     New Mexico, Acting President; Ohio State University, Provost; 
     Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, Chancellor; 
     Oregon State System of Higher Education, Chancellor; Bucknell 
     University, President; University of Texas Board of Regents, 
     Chancellor; University of Utah, President; Virginia State 
     University, Vice President; Washington State University, 
     President; University of Wisconsin System, President.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of the 
college students in Florida, and against the Solomon amendment. This 
amendment would deprive our students, our future citizens, of the 
ability to exercise their democratic rights to free speech.
  This amendment is a gag rule--pure and simple. It would prevent 
students from deciding to use their own fees for causes they determine 
are important. It interferes with student and university decision 
making. Ironically, this amendment would interfere with students rights 
to protest against the $4.5 billion cuts for education in this very 
bill.
  Don't the decisions about which groups and activities students choose 
to fund with their own fees belong to the students--not the Federal 
Government? Don't a majority of students vote or petition for these 
fees in the first place? Isn't that the lesson of democracy we should 
be teaching our students?
  We do not need to interfere with the decisions of student bodies 
about how their fees should be spent--especially if they choose to 
enter debated of public policy of our democracy. We should be 
encouraging them to participate in our democracy--not curb their 
participation.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161, 
noes 263, not voting 10, as follows:

[[Page H 8405]]


                             [Roll No. 623]

                               AYES--161

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--263

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Camp
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Filner
     Moakley
     Petri
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Volkmer
     Williams
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2236

  Messrs. EWING, SAWYER, PORTER, and HOEKSTRA changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BASS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening I missed rollcall vote 
No. 623, the Solomon amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted 
``no.''


                    amendment offered by mr. gordon

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon: At the end of the bill, 
     insert after the last section (preceding the short title) the 
     following new section:
       Sec.   . None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for grants to students at an institution of higher 
     education under the Pell Grant program under subpart 1 of 
     part A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that such institution is ineligible to 
     participate in a loan program under part B of title IV of 
     such Act as a result of a default rate determination under 
     section 435(a) of such Act.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to the order of 
August 2, 1995, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The CHAIR recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema] and I have a common-
sense and, I think, an uncontroversial amendment. In 1982, we had a $3 
billion student loan program in this country and a 10-percent default 
rate. Ten years later, in 1992, we had a $7 billion student loan 
program and a 54-percent default rate. We were spending more money on 
defaults in 1992 than we spent on the whole program 10 years before 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, that resulted from a variety of reasons, one of which 
is the Department of Education simply was not doing a good job in 
overseeing the program and collecting, and the other problem was there 
were a number of schools that had extraordinarily high default rates, 
50, 60, 70, 80 percent, because they were more interested in getting a 
student's money than in giving a student an education. With the help of 
a number of the folks here in this Chamber tonight, we instituted a 
number of reforms in the student loan program integrity provisions.
  One of the major reforms that was made in the student loan program 
was to kick out of the program those schools with high default rates, 
and the result has been, in the first year of that, last year, we saved 
$600 million for the taxpayers; this year it is estimated $1.2 billion; 
and that figure will continue to climb. What we found is that a number 
of those schools said, ``Fine, we will just get out of the student loan 
program, but we want to continue to get the Pell grants because there 
is no accountability for Pell grants.''
  Right now, Mr. Chairman, we have $320 million a year in Pell grants 
going to schools that have been determined to be so irresponsible that 
they should not be in the loan program. The gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema] and myself have a simple amendment that simply says that 
if you are a school that has been kicked out of the student loan 
program because of high default rates, then your school is not eligible 
for Pell grants. That is the bulk of the amendment. I know there will 
be some questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey 
[Mrs. Roukema], and I ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to 
control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Tennessee?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 

[[Page H 8406]]
  consume, and I want to rise in strong support, of course, of this 
amendment. I am happy to join again with the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Gordon] on this amendment. As he has stated, we successfully 
passed similar language in 1992 on this very floor, which most of the 
people here voted for at that time, but it was mysteriously dropped in 
conference. We are coming back to that now.
  I think it is a straightforward amendment, as the gentleman has 
already said, and I want my colleagues to listen to this now. It would 
prevent a postsecondary school from participating in the Pell Grant 
Program if the school is already ineligible to participate in the 
student loan program.

                              {time}  2245

  That is plain and simple if they have very high default rates and do 
not meet the criteria in the legislation of today.
  My colleagues, this bill is an example of how we are trying 
desperately to save the taxpayers' money, and it is appropriate, 
therefore, that we add this reform to this bill so that again, we can 
go along with the savings that we know are really out there for the 
taxpayers.
  The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon] has already outlined some 
of the savings, but I would like to add to what he said about the 
benefits that we have already seen in this just 2 years. In just the 
short time that this reform has already been in effect, the Departnment 
of Education has documented substantial results, having already saved 
millions of taxpayers' dollars, and it disqualified at least 129 of the 
schools. However, that is not enough.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations held hearings just 3 weeks ago to 
examine this very question of the Pell Grant Program in proprietary 
schools. That hearing disclosed that a California-based trade school, 
which had repeatedly failed to reimburse loans and filed false loan 
applications had received almost $58 million in Pell grants in just a 
few short years, which made it the 16th largest Pell grant recipient in 
the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment says, enough is enough. We are trying to 
save the taxpayers' dollars, we are trying to balance the budget. Make 
our Pell grant money go farther, save the students and save the 
taxpayers from the scam schools.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] Chairman of the Committee on Economic and 
Educational Opportunities, for his observations on this issue.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, our two colleagues have an excellent amendment. I just 
want to make a little history for the benefit of this Department of 
Education and any future department to make sure that they understand 
there is an exception in the legislation that the Secretary can make, 
and that is put there primarily because a community college, for 
instance, may have only four loans. They may have two defaults. That is 
not what the gentlewoman is talking about, and we want to make sure 
that the department understands that, and they are protected.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, that is a very useful contribution, and I 
thank the gentleman.
  There have been some that have raised the question with me, and I 
have tried to assure them that that problem is taken care of, and it 
should not adversely affect their community colleges.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment makes eminent good sense and we 
would accept it and urge its adoption.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, if I could ask either the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey or the gentleman from Tennessee, both who 
have worked incredibly hard on this problem, in the case of a public 
institution, a community college which we have a lot of obviously in 
California and Texas and other places, what happens there? I mean it is 
the student who is in default, but you have other students who want to 
come to the institution who are eligible for Pell grants. Would they be 
denied Pell grants? You talk about we have a very limited number of 
loans. But would that be true?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman's time has 
expired.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Has the time in opposition been claimed?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It has not.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, could I claim the time in 
opposition?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman oppose the amendment?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I think I might, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my concern is public institutions. Pell grants, as I 
understand it in California, are used mainly at the community college 
level much more so than the loan program. But you could have a limited 
number of students who have loans and they default on them, and then 
that spills over to the students who want to get an education and are 
qualified for a grant and need the grant to go to school. Can you help 
me with that?
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me repeat what I think Chairman 
Goodling put forth earlier.
  Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is talking about is a valid 
situation. You will have some community colleges that may have four 
people there on loans and have 4,000 on Pell grants. You have a 
situation because there is such a small loan volume that you could have 
two of those four that have defaulted, and so they are in a high 
default rate situation.
  As was pointed out, this was never intended to cut that school off 
from Pell grants. It gives the Secretary of Education the authority, 
and encourages them, to waive this prohibition in that situation.
  Mr. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also say that the 
students would not be punished because they could come under existing 
law for mitigating circumstances.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey and the gentleman from Tennessee who have worked hard on 
this, and they have removed my opposition, so I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, if I might just quickly close by saying we talked about 
saving the taxpayers' money, and we are going to do that. But what we 
are also going to do is save opportunities with this bill. We are going 
to save the opportunities of those individuals that are going to a high 
default rate school that really is not giving an education. They are 
going there under false pretenses, and they are not going to get a good 
education. Now they can take that Pell grant and have it directed to a 
good school and have their opportunities fulfilled too. So we know we 
save money, and we also save opportunities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply underscore what the gentleman has said. 
In 

[[Page H 8407]]
my closing remarks I stated we are not only saving the taxpayers, but 
we are concerned about the students that are being used and deprived of 
an education and we want them to get that good education.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by 
myself and my colleague from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon]. And, I would like 
to congratulate him for his continued efforts on this issue. For my 
colleagues who were not here a few years ago, the gentleman from 
Tennessee and I successfully passed similar language to the 1992 Labor-
HHS-Education appropriations bill, but it was mysteriously dropped in 
conference.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would prevent a 
postsecondary school from participating in the Pell Grant Program if 
that school is already ineligible to participate in the federally 
guaranteed student loan program. Plain and simple, this legislation 
will make sure that if you have high default rates, then you should not 
receive any title IV higher education funding period.
  Mr. Chairman, as all of my colleagues know, this is a critical time 
for our country. Congress is trying to save taxpayer dollars while 
improving the quality of post-secondary education that is available to 
all Americans. We took strong steps forward in achieving this in 1992 
when we reauthorized the Higher Education Act with nearly 100 sorely 
needed reforms that were good for students and good for taxpayers.
  Reforms such as the 3 year 25 percent cohort default rate were 
intended to put an end to risk-free Federal subsidies for those 
unscrupulous, for-profit trade schools who promise students a good 
education that leads to a good job and then fail to deliver on that 
promise--at the expense of both students and the taxpayer. If these 
schools violated these rules, then they would be bounced from the 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already determined that schools with 
unacceptably high student loan default rates should not be permitted to 
participate in the federally guaranteed student loan program. I submit 
that if a school is deemed ineligible to participate in the federally 
guaranteed student loan program, then obviously it should not qualify 
for the Pell Grant Program. And, as I already mentioned, while the 
House passed modified language addressing this concern in 1992, it was 
mysteriously dropped in conference. So, we are back here today 
discussing the one that got away.
  Today we have an opportunity to stretch our Pell grant funds by 
disqualifying those schools that we have already disqualified from the
 federally guaranteed student loan program.

  Data recently compiled by the Department of Education has revealed 
that, as a result of the 1992 reform addressing 25 percent cohort 
default rates, 544 proprietary schools no longer participate in the 
Guaranteed Student Loan Program. But, at least 129 of these 
disqualified schools continued to participate in the Pell Grant Program 
and subsequently continued to receive millions in Pell grants since 
1991.
  And, these figures do not even include all of the schools who 
voluntarily withdrew from the loan program because of the prospect of 
sanctions. In many of these cases, schools just chose to stop 
certifying loan applications instead of notifying the Department of 
Education that they were ending their participation in the program.
  To top it off, the Senate Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations held hearings 3 weeks ago to examine the abuse of the 
Pell Grant Program by proprietary schools. That hearing disclosed that 
a California-based trade school which had repeatedly failed to 
reimburse loans and filed false loan applications received almost $58 
million in Pell grants from 1990 to 1995 making it the 16th largest 
Pell grant recipient in the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, the Title IV Student Aid Program currently serves 2,487 
proprietary schools, and proprietary schools represent 41 percent of 
all Pell grant recipients. And, despite corrective actions taken 
through the 1992 higher education amendments to prevent fraud and abuse 
of the Federal student aid program, this hearing only confirms that 
similar problems still persist, and that much more needs to be done to 
stop them.
  Enough is enough. Make our Pell grant money go farther. Save the 
taxpayers from scam schools. Throw the scam schools out of the Pell 
program. Protect our students and our taxpayers. Support this critical 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Gordon].
  The amendment was agreed to.


               amendment offered by mr. lazio of new york

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lazio of New York: Page 88, after 
     line 7, insert the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. The amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Corporation for National and Community Service--Domestic 
     Volunteer Service Programs, Operating Expenses'' is hereby 
     increased by $13,793,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
August 2, 1995, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking Mr. Porter, who has done a 
wonderful job in assisting on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which restores money 
to the National Senior Service Corps, part of the Domestic Volunteer 
Service Programs. The National Senior Service Corps is a very 
successful program essential to today's senior citizens. The National 
Senior Service Corps includes: the Foster Grandparents Program, the 
Senior Companion Program, and RSVP--the Retired and Senior Volunteer 
Program. The additional funds from this amendment, which is totally 
offset by the savings in the last amendment by Mrs. Roukema and Mr. 
Gordon, will be equally divided among these three programs.
  The funding level in this bill represents a reduction of 15 percent 
from the 1995 level and returns the National Senior Service Corps to 
1988 funding levels.
  These programs have brought needed services to communities across 
America and provided hundreds of thousands of service opportunities to 
older Americans. The seniors throughout our country represent a huge 
resource which we have only begun to realize.
  We are a young Nation which prides itself on our youthfulness and 
vigor. We have a tendency to look toward our children and rely on them 
to realize our hope for tomorrow. I share this vision, and believe that 
children are the ultimate reason for which we do our work here in 
Congress. I also believe, however, that the senior citizens of this 
country have a wealth of experience and knowledge which must be 
engaged. As we look at some of the enormous social problems we face 
today, it is essential that as a nation we look toward those who have 
faced and overcome adversity before, and now stand as examples of that 
which makes America great. We need to realize that senior citizens are 
an essential part of the solution to many of today's ills.
  It is easy to look at a bill such as the one before us today and miss 
the true meaning behind the numbers. The reduction to the National 
Senior Service Corps represent community needs which will go unmet. 
These programs have proven to be incredibly successful throughout their 
existence, and have engaged seniors in valuable community service 
making them part of the solution and giving them meaning. This 
amendment will restore nearly $14 million of those funds.
  The failure to adopt this amendment will mean:
  A total of 3,208 Foster Grandparent service years--carried out by 
approximately 4,800 older volunteers--would be eliminated. This is the 
equivalent of 46 local projects--out of a current total of 279 
projects. These Foster Grandparents would have served almost 12,500 
infants, children, and young people with a variety of disabilities, 
including those who were abused or neglected, homeless, in trouble with 
the law, afflicted with a serious illness, or otherwise in need of 
person-to-person services from a caring older person.
  An estimated 1,220 Senior Companion service years--involving over 
1,700 older volunteers--would be eliminated. These Senior Companions 
would have served thousands of frail adults who need assistance with 
the activities of daily living to remain independent in their 
communities. Communities and families of these frail adults would have 
to find some other way--very likely costly
 institutionalization--to replace the 1.3 million hours of service they 
would loose each year.

  In RSVP, where volunteers receive no stipend, the reduction would 
eliminate over 153 projects--from a current 

[[Page H 8408]]
project level of 759--serving over 12,200 local agencies and 
organizations in approximately 300 counties in all 50 States. These 
projects enroll approximately 91,800 RSVP volunteers--all seniors who 
rise in the morning with a sense of purpose, if the reduction is 
implemented.
  I ask my colleagues, should we not utilize the talent and experience 
of America's senior citizens? The Lazio amendment would restore much of 
the money for these vital programs, and continue to engage our senior 
citizens in valuable community service.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. If we could shorten things up by accepting the amendment, 
would the gentleman be persuaded to shorten things up?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do that, if 
the gentleman would indulge me for about 30 seconds to yield to a 
colleague of mine who very much wanted to speak to this.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would then yield me 30 
seconds I would appreciate it, and then we would be happy to accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. 
Ensign].
  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lazio 
amendment to H.R. 2127, the Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations Act.
  I want to thank my colleague for offering this amendment today. The 
Lazio amendment would restore $13 million to the National Senior 
Volunteer Corps. Millions of seniors across the Nation--including 
hundreds in my congressional district in southern Nevada--are dependent 
on the friendship, knowledge, and confidence they gain from National 
Senior Volunteer Corps programs. Foster Grandparents, Retired Senior 
Volunteers, and Senior Companions are making a difference in our 
hospitals with the terminally ill, homeless shelters where many have 
lost hope, juvenile detention facilities with troubled youth, and in 
schools where drug use is rampant. These programs represent true 
volunteerism and a welcome challenge to seniors. Our communities are 
better places to live because of the commitment of senior volunteers.
  I know that we are facing tight budgetary times. Difficult decisions 
must be made to balance the budget. However, I don't believe that we 
should curtail volunteer opportunities by 15 percent for seniors when 
an increasing segment of our population is aging. The growing aging 
population is living longer and healthier lives. Seniors have the extra 
time to share their knowledge, experience, and wisdom, and I believe 
the small Federal investment we make for our seniors is well spent. In 
fact, Federal funding for programs such as Foster Grandparents from 
State and Private sources is leveraged several times by State and 
private dollars.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say on this side, we 
accept the amendment. This is a tiny fix-up in a massively messed up 
bill, but we have no problem with the particulars of this amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by mr. sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders: Page 88, after line 7, 
     insert the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. (a) Limitations on Use of Funds for Agreements 
     for Development of Drugs.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be used by the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health to enter into--
       (1) an agreement on the conveyance or licensing of a patent 
     for a drug, or another exclusive right to a drug.
       (2) an agreement on the use of information derived from 
     animal tests or human clinical trials conducted by the 
     National Institutes of Health on a drug, including an 
     agreement under which such information is provided by the 
     National Institutes of Health to another on an exclusive 
     basis; or
       (3) a cooperative research and development agreement under 
     section 12 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act 
     of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a) pertaining to a drug.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply when it is 
     made known to the Federal officer having authority to 
     obligate or expend the funds involved that--
       (1) the sale of the drug involved is subject to a 
     reasonable price agreement; or
       (2) a reasonable price agreement regarding the sale of such 
     drug is not required by the public interest.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
August 2, 1995, the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes and a Member opposed will be recognized for 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be 
recognized for 10 minutes in support of his amendment, and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the people of this country want to know why the 
taxpayers of the United States are providing billions of dollars a year 
to the National Institutes of Health to research and develop new drugs, 
and the major beneficiaries of that investment are not American 
consumers, but large multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical companies. The 
taxpayers pay for the research, and the pharmaceutical companies make 
huge profits by selling the taxpayer-developed drugs at outrageously 
high prices.
  Mr. Chairman, 42 percent of all U.S. health care research and 
development expenditures is paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. The result 
of this is that the NIH has created many of the new and most important 
drugs which are on the market today. Of the 37 cancer drugs discovered 
since 1955, 92 percent of them, 34 cancer drugs, were developed with 
Federal funding. In other words, the overwhelming majority of new 
cancer-fighting drugs developed in the last 40 years were developed 
with taxpayer funding.
  Mr. Chairman, given that reality, it seems to me that the citizens of 
this country, who have already
 paid for the development of these drugs with their tax dollars, should 
not be ripped off when they purchase these products at the drugstore. 
They should not be forced to pay outrageously high prices so that the 
pharmaceutical companies can make exorbitant profits. Sadly, that is 
not the case today.

  In April, 1995, the NIH dropped the Bush administration's reasonable 
pricing policy, which was aimed at giving U.S. taxpayers a return on 
their investment by preventing drugs developed with taxpayers' dollars 
from being sold back to them at competitive prices. This amendment 
would simply restore the Bush administration's reasonable pricing 
clause, but would still provide the NIH with flexibility to waive the 
pricing clause if it is in the public interest to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, let me give the Members a few brief examples of why we 
need a reasonable pricing policy. Over the course of 15 years, the U.S. 
taxpayer spent $32 million at the NIH to develop Taxol, an anticancer 
drug that treats breast, lung, and ovarian cancers. Following the 
successful development of this anticancer drug, Bristol-Myers-Squibb 
was provided commercial rights and extensive government information on 
Taxol. Bristol-Myers-Squibb then turned around and sold the drug to 
consumers at roughly 20 times what the drug costs to produce. The 
result, a cancer patient taking Taxol today may pay in excess of 
$10,000 for the treatment, while the cost to Bristol-Myers-Squibb of 
manufacturing the drug is about $500.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very complex issue. The gentleman's 
amendment relates to the reasonable pricing clause that was in effect 
for NIH collaborative research until last April. The complexity of the 
issue has generated a great deal of controversy.

[[Page H 8409]]

  NIH very wisely conducted an extensive review of the policy, holding 
public hearings, consulting with scientists, patient and consumer 
advocates, and representatives of academia and industry. Dr. Varmus, 
the appointee of this administration, as Director at NIH, determined 
that, and I quote:

       The pricing clause has driven industry away from 
     potentially beneficial scientific collaborations with the 
     Public Health Service scientists, without providing an 
     offsetting benefit to the public.

  Mr. Chairman, the reviews also indicated that NIH research was 
adversely affected by an inability of NIH scientists to obtain 
compounds from industry for basic research purposes. Other safeguards, 
such as termination clauses and public access requirements, are already 
built into NIH technology licensing process. In addition, NIH has 
issued a statement of objectives they intend to follow in licensing NIH 
patents. Except for the Bureau of Mines, no other agency, except NIH, 
has had a reasonable pricing clause. No law or regulation expressly 
requires or permits NIH to enforce such a provision.
  As I said, Mr. Chairman, this is a complex issue and one that has 
potentially very significant ramifications, both for future scientific 
progress and the growth of industries such as biotechnology. NIH has 
studied this issue extensively. I would like to rely on Dr. Varmus' 
judgment on the matter, and I would hope that Congress does not attempt 
to intervene in this process. Thus, I must oppose this amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PORTER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I must say that I can understand the position of the 
gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Porter] but I guess I would say after all 
of the decisions that have been made in this House tonight that have 
come down against average people and against common people, this is at 
least one decision that would be made on the side of common people, 
working people, and against the side of those who would gouge them. I 
personally, on behalf of this side, would accept the amendment.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia, [Mr. Norwood].
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Sanders amendment, because 
I believe it would restrict drug companies from producing the very 
medicines that save life prolong life, and improve life. We have the 
greatest biotech industry in the world, an industry that already spends 
$7 billion each year on its own research.
  Yes, drug prices are high, but they are high for a variety of 
reasons, one of which is the cost of research is very high, and drug 
companies have to put up with so much interference from the Federal 
Government. If we try to regulate drug prices, as in this amendment, we 
will only make the critical voyage to discovery of new medicines more 
difficult.
  Some people think that the Government should set prices for all 
drugs. I think that is wrong, and I am certain it is wrong for patients 
who ultimately benefit from the new medicines. It would also hurt the 
taxpayers, since the Government spends so much of our tax dollars on 
health care. The dollars spent by the taxpayers for basic research at 
NIH ultimately benefit the Government through lower medical costs, and 
more importantly, it benefits all patients. We should not do anything 
to obstruct the research drug companies are carrying out today.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will hurt research and ultimately it 
will hurt patients. We cannot let this Government set any prices, but 
most certainly, not drug prices. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, the cost of prescription 
drugs, especially for senior citizens in my State of Rhode Island, is 
prohibitively high. I am sure each one of us, if we went back to our 
districts and asked our senior citizens what they are concerned about, 
among other things on the top three of their list would be the cost of 
prescription drugs.
  This amendment says that when the taxpayers foot the bill for 
research, they should not have to pay for it again at the prescription 
counter. Prescription drugs are the lifeline for so many Americans. 
They are also the key to the bottom line for some of our largest 
companies. During the 1980's, drug prices rose 152 percent. Profits 
also reached new heights. By 1990, the drug industry was the Nation's 
most profitable, with an annual profit, annual, on average of 13.6 
percent. This is more than three times the profits of the Fortune 500 
companies, so do not say there is not enough money for R&D in the drug 
companies' budgets.
  The United States is the only industrialized Nation that does not 
regulate prices or profits on drug companies. We pay a price for that. 
In this country we spend 25 to 40 times the cost of prescription drugs 
in this country than they do in other countries around the world.
  In light of these facts, the amendment of the gentleman from Vermont 
[Mr. Sanders] is a pretty tame amendment. It basically says drugs 
developed by the taxpayers cannot be sold back to the taxpayers at 
excessive prices. Without a reasonable pricing clause, the taxpayers 
pay first to develop these drugs through the NIH budget. Then they pay 
again when they try to pay for them, when they go to the hospital.
  The Members know what we are talking about. It is up to the NIH to 
make this reasonable clause thing stick, and say:

       We are going to work with the drug companies, but we are 
     not going to use taxpayer monies to come up with these drugs, 
     and then allow these drug companies to run away with the R&D 
     that we financed, so they can profit and send these 
     exorbitant profits that these drug companies are making back 
     on the stock market.

  Make no mistake about it, these drug companies are making three times 
what the average Fortune 500 company is making, so I do not want to 
hear a lot about how we are going to gouge the drug companies if we do 
not permit them to use the taxpayer money, to use it for R&D.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would deny NIH support for new 
drugs unless there are government price controls on approved drugs. The 
question is do we want price controls. The last time we had price 
controls was in the early 1970's. They were a total flop, a total 
failure. This amendment would take us back to the era of big 
government. Wage and price controls have been discredited since ancient 
times. I cannot believe that the people who are offering this amendment 
are serious. Rather than setting up more hurdles and more 
disincentives, we should give incentives to our companies to promote 
miracle drugs.
  I ask the Members to look around them. There are people, right here 
in this Chamber, alive thanks to the drugs produced by the free 
enterprise system. If we are thinking human beings, we should encourage 
and provide incentives to the companies who produce and discover more 
miracle drugs. AIDS, cancer, heart disease, all cry out for cures, do 
they not?
  We cannot have it both ways. We cannot strangle incentives and then 
complain about the lack of cures for these dreaded diseases. This 
amendment epitomizes basically the old, discredited, liberal welfare 
state philosophy. Today is the day of the opportunity society, and 
socialism is not in vogue. Let us not go back to the old, failed 
policies of the past. Let us look to the future. Vote against this 
wrong-headed amendment. Let us work for cures in AIDS, cancer, heart 
disease, and other dreaded diseases that plague mankind. Vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a bizarre version of reality 
from the other side of the aisle. First of all, let us talk about at 
what stage that 2 percent of the money that goes into research, in drug 
research in this country, is paid for by the taxpayers of the United 
States.
  Often private companies enter into agreements with the NIH to develop 
new drugs using that public research. 

[[Page H 8410]]
In my State they developed a drug which came from a yew tree, a tree 
that grew on public lands. Here is the way it works: The taxpayers paid 
for all the research, we discovered and developed Taxol, the NIH 
entered into an exclusive agreement with one company, Bristol-Myers-
Squibb, to sell that drug. The drug research was done by the taxpayers. 
The resource grew on public lands. The company got the profits. A $500 
production cost dose of that critical cancer drug for ovarian cancer 
costs $10,000.
  Now we are saying, ``Oh, well, these drug companies, we would not 
want to control their prices.'' Then if they do not want to have price 
controls, they should not benefit free from public research. That is 
the bottom line here. They are not paying the development costs; the 
taxpayers are. Then the taxpayers have to go out and pay for profit 
rates of 20 times the cost of production.
  Mr. Chairman, this is, plain and simple, another ripoff. It is all 
about money. It is not only about taxpayer money, it is about political 
contributions; $357,500 in the first 2 months of this year were 
contributed to the Republican National Committee by the pharmaceutical 
industry. We can bet there will be a lot of righteous indignation on 
that side of the aisle tonight, because it is about what really runs 
this place, campaign contributions, and taxpayers' money, while we 
fleece them out of the other pocket by talking about free enterprise.
                              {time}  2315

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Walsh].
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Sanders 
amendment. This amendment would only succeed in preventing potentially 
promising new drug development that would benefit all Americans.
  The Federal Government cannot be expected to do all research by 
itself. NIH has neither the mandate nor the resources to bring drugs to 
the commercial market. In order to speed the development of new life-
saving drugs, NIH often benefits from working with business and this 
cooperation enhances the health of all Americans.
  We should not be putting price controls on the development of new 
drugs as this amendment would do. The NIH reasonable pricing clause, 
which proponents of this amendment would like to reinstate, is a 
restraint on the new product development that the public has identified 
as an important return of their taxpayer dollars.
  We need to be proactive in finding important new cancer drugs and in 
other significant health advances. One of NIH's statutory missions is 
to transfer promising technologies to the private sector for 
commercialization. Often government-industry joint collaborations are 
the most effective means of ensuring that
 promising new drugs are brought to market in the shortest possible 
timeframe.

  The Director of the National Cancer Institute has said that the drug 
Taxol is the most important advance in the treatment of cancer in a 
decade.
  We should not be afraid of industry making a reasonable profit on 
their R&D (research and development) expenditures. After all, a 
business needs to be able to recoup its return on investment and, in 
case you haven't noticed, we are a capitalist country not a socialist 
country. The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is one of the few sectors of 
the economy where we have a positive trade balance and this healthy 
private/public partnership has created a positive environment in which 
medical advances have proliferated and this has benefited all segments 
of our society. Clearly the taxpayers' investment wins a valuable 
return portion in jobs and public health.
  This amendment would have the adverse effect of inhibiting the 
development of innovative medical breakthroughs and it would be 
contrary to the public interest. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to clarify this debate. We 
are not talking about the government controlling prices of 
pharmaceuticals and drugs. We are only talking about specific 
categories of drugs developed under research at taxpayers' expense. An 
example is Levamisole which was a drug, a veterinary drug, 6 cents a 
dose, they discovered they could use it to treat colon cancer. The 
company that took that government research and sold it then started 
selling that 6-cent drug for $6. So consumers across America got no 
benefit from the government research.
  The same thing is true with Taxol. Government research developed this 
drug that cost $500, then it was sold to consumers by a private company 
for $10,000. At a time when health care costs are going through the 
roof, when we worry about the vitality of programs like Medicare, we 
have got to do what we can to help consumers across America.
  The gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] is merely promoting a policy 
which was accepted by this government under Republican administrations 
for years and years. I urge the Members to think twice about opposing 
this amendment which will help keep health care costs under control.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this is not price controls. I am surprised 
to hear my colleague referring to George Bush as a socialist. He would 
be very upset about it. His administration developed this policy, 
because they believed quite correctly that if the taxpayers put money 
into the development of a drug, they have the right to get something 
out of that investment, that the company cannot simply charge any 
amount of money they want making that drug unaffordable to the American 
people. Let us stand up for the taxpayers. Let us stand up for the 
consumers. Let us vote for this policy that was instituted by George 
Bush.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remind the gentleman from 
Vermont that the NIH has rejected this policy under the Clinton 
administration. I want to repeat what I said earlier. NIH has reviewed 
the policy extensively, they have held public hearings, they have 
consulted with scientists, patient and consumer advocates and 
representatives of academia and industry and Dr. Varmus determined that 
the pricing clause has driven industry away from potentially beneficial 
scientific collaborations with scientists from NIH without providing an 
offsetting benefit to the public. I think he has made a determination 
that we should respect. I would urge the amendment be rejected.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders] will be postponed.


                    amendment offered by mr. emerson

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Emerson: Page 88, after line 7, 
     insert the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used for the expenses of an 
     electronic benefit transfer (EBT) task force.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] and a Member opposed will 
each be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H 8411]]

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply say in the interest of time, there 
may be some problems with this. I think if there are, we can look at it 
in conference. In the interest of saving time, I would be willing to 
accept the amendment if we could move ahead.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple--money appropriated for 
the Department of Health and Human Services--or any other agency in 
this bill--shall not be used to fund the Federal EBT task force in any 
way. This task force is pursuing a nationwide Electronic Benefits 
Transfer system that uses an Invitation for Expression of Interest 
which limits procurement to only financial institutions, a non-
competitive procurement process.
  Last May, the Subcommittee of Department Operations, Nutrition, and 
Foreign Agriculture, of which I am chairman held a hearing concerning 
the food stamp program and EBT. We heard from two States, Maryland and 
Texas, who did not limit their procurement and have non-financial 
institutions running their programs. They raved about their State EBT 
programs and the administration of those programs.
  Several organizations have expressed concern that the EBT task 
force's method of procurement is unfair, including the Independent 
Bankers Association of America. When considering the fact that the EBT 
task force has limited the competition to financial institutions, one 
would not think a group like the Independent Bankers would be 
complaining. However, they write on July 12: ``The Independent Bankers 
Association of America believes that the strategy for the nationwide 
implementation of Electronic Benefits Transfers is unfair and anti-
competitive for all but a few financial instituions.''
  By opposing provisions in H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act 
that exempt States from coverage under regulation E, the EBT task force 
has been criticized by such groups as the National Governor's 
Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the 
National Association of Counties, and the American Public Welfare 
Association. These organizations point to the EBT task force's position 
on regulation E as just one example of the task force's misguided 
policies. This regulation would require that States which deliver 
benefits through EBT to replace all but $50 of benefits in the event 
that cards are lost or stolen. Regulation E would cost States an 
additional $827 million per year for AFDC, Food Stamps, and general 
assistance. If regulation E remains on the books, the nationwide 
implementation of the Electronics Benefit Transfer system will be in 
jeopardy. Besides regulation E, H.R. 4 includes provisions to ensure 
state control of EBT. Yet, the EBT Task Force opposes these provisions 
too.
  I recently wrote a letter with my distinguished colleague from 
California, Mr. Condit, to Treasury Secretary Rubin expressing our 
concern about the actions being taken by the EBT Task Force. We asked 
Secretary Rubin to suspend the present Invitation for Expression of 
Interest process and allow the Congress to work with the EBT task 
force, social service groups, and other interested public welfare 
associations. But the task force continues to move forward with the IEI 
non-competitive procurement system despite all the concerns expressed 
by the Congress and various public interest groups.
  I want to make it exceedingly clear to my colleagues that I support 
EBT. In fact, I believe that EBT will play a fundamental role in 
comprehensive welfare reform. I simply want to ensure that States are 
given the opportunity and the flexibility to implement good EBT systems 
within their State.
  We must give careful consideration to any role for the national 
government in the execution of EBT programs for State-administered 
Federal benefits. This amendment sends a clear message that when 
actions are taken that significantly affect the administration of 
benefits to millions of Americans, Congress must not and will not be 
shut out of the process. I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by 
Mr. Emerson. The Federal Electronic Benefits Transfer Task Force is 
working to create a new Federal bureaucracy and restrict State control 
over EBT systems.
  This amendment will halt the activities of the Federal EBT Task Force 
which has interfered with States' plans to develop EBT programs. This 
amendment will not in any way hinder the ability of every State to move 
forward with implementing EBT on their own. Six States have already set 
up EBT systems and 20 States are moving to do the same.
  As Congress works to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy and 
give more authority to the States, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and reduce funding for this big-government task force.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendments No. 132 and 133 Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and in order to 
save time, I ask unanimous consent to have them considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment No. 132 offered by Mr. Menendez. Page 80, strike 
     lines 13 through 22 and insert the following:
       ``(C) any act of self-dealing (as defined section 4941(d) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined by treating 
     only government officials described in paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of section 4946(c) of such Code as disqualified persons) 
     between such an official and any organization described in 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of section 501(c) of such Code and 
     exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;''.
       Page 84, at the end of line 15, insert the following: ``In 
     the case of an organization described in paragraph (3) or (4) 
     of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and 
     exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code, all of the 
     funds of such organization shall be treated as from a 
     grant.''
       Amendment No. 133 offered by Mr. Mendendez: At the end of 
     the bill, insert after the last section (preceding the short 
     title) the following new section:
       Sec.  . None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to pay the salary of any government 
     official (as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of section 
     4946(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that there has been an act of self-dealing 
     (as defined section 4941(d) of such Code, determined by 
     treating such government officials as disqualified persons) 
     between such government official and any organization 
     described in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 501(c) of such 
     Code and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, we believe 
that the amendments may be subject to a point of order, and I would 
reserve a point of order until we make that determination.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. Does the 
gentleman object to the consideration en bloc?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, we do not have copies of the amendments, so 
we would reserve the right to object until we can see the amendments.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, both of the 
amendments were printed in the Record.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, I 
would inquire of the gentleman whether it is 132 and 133; is that 
correct?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. That is correct.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I object to their being considered en bloc 
because I believe there is a point of order against one of the 
amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
               Amendment No. 132 Offered by Mr. Menendez

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 132 offered by Mr. Menendez: Page 80, strike 
     lines 13 through 22 and insert the following:
       ``(C) any act of self-dealing (as defined section 4941(d) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, determined by treating 
     only government officials described in paragraph (1) or (2) 
     of section 4946(c) of such Code as disqualified persons) 
     between such an official and any organization described in 
     paragraph (3) or (4) of section 501(c) of such Code and 
     exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code;''.
       Page 84, at the end of line 15, insert the following: ``In 
     the case of an organization described in paragraph (3) or (4) 
     of section 

[[Page H 8412]]
     501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under 
     section 501(a) of such Code, all of the funds of such 
     organization shall be treated as from a grant.''

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] and a Member opposed will each be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez].
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I hope that the gentleman will not insist on his point of order 
because this goes to the very heart of what the majority has tried to 
do in terms of the Istook amendment which is dealing with welfare for 
lobbyists and we just simply want to clarify it and improve upon that 
part which already exists under a legislating provision in an 
appropriations bill for which there are 29 different such provisions of 
legislating in this appropriations bill which have been protected under 
the rule, and, therefore, my understanding of the rules, is permitted 
to be amended once in fact it has been protected under the rule.
  What we seek to do is to improve upon and assist with what the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is trying to do. What we do is 
three different things, or two in this particular amendment: One is 
deal with a question of political advocacy in self-dealing. The other 
one which is a question of value that is listed in the amendment which 
is presently part of the legislation as it exists, which is to now go 
forward from that thing of value and include tax exemption.
  Let me get briefly to the heart of why we believe, if you believe in 
the first place as the majority has argued in the past amendment that 
was had by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs] that it is a 
terrible feature to have the ability to have Federal dollars be used 
and in some way have those dollars shifted insofar as freeing up 
private dollars to be used for political advocacy or advocacy of a 
certain point of view, then it clearly must be as the intentions of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] was cited when he came in his 
testimony before the committee that both tax exemptions and tax 
deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the 
tax system, a tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to 
the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its 
income, then clearly this amendment is in order. Let me go through why.
  The fact of the matter is, is that if you believe that having a grant 
to an organization, that that permits them to free up private moneys, 
because you cannot use Federal moneys to go ahead and have advocacy, 
then it is clear that those who are enjoying nonprofit status and that 
lobby the Congress of the United States but that are receiving a 
benefit of
 fungible dollars because, in fact, such an exemption has the same 
effect as a cash grant under the case of Reagan versus Taxation with 
Representation of Washington, and if you also want to clean up what I 
heard wanted to be cleaned up, which is in fact using the resources of 
the Federal Government directly or indirectly to lobby the same Federal 
Government, then you also want to prevent self-dealing.

  In that respect, I would point to some of the testimony that has been 
taken in this regard, look at what the Association for Retarded 
Citizens said when they contended that without their right to 
participate in litigation, the organization would not have been able to 
successfully sue the State of Pennsylvania which eventually led to the 
national recognition of the right of retarded citizens to a public 
education and they went on to contend that currently while they did not 
spend more than 5 percent of their budget for advocacy, the new 
definition would require including in the total activities not now 
included and therefore exploitive.
  But let us get to why I believe that it was the intention of this 
amendment and it is proper to proceed that nonprofit organizations also 
be included.

                              {time}  2330

  501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations are limited in their lobbying by 
current law to produce and distribute materials which clearly violate 
the spirit of the restrictions of both current law and the proposed 
changes contained in the Istook amendment, simply by printing a 
disclaimer at the bottom of such materials declaring that their 
comments are not meant to be construed as lobbying.
  We have seen a lot of those letters. As a matter of fact, on the 
Istook amendment, we had the National Taxpayers Union, that is a 
501(c)(4) tax-exempt group, urging support for the amendment and also 
the defeat of the motions to strike it and clearly said, ``We are going 
to also rate you on this.'' But this is a clear example of lobbying 
undertaking with a subsidy of tax-exempt dollars.
  Let us go to organizations closely linked to politicians, which, in 
fact, is in essence self-dealing. Let us look at the questions of the 
Progress and Freedom Foundation as an example of that. According to an 
Associated Press article of February 17 of this year, ``The Progress 
and Freedom Foundation made a substantial investment in Newt
 Gingrich during its first year in business.''

  Now it goes on to say that ``Documents filed with the Internal 
Revenue Service and made public Thursday show that more than 80 percent 
of the tax-exempt think tank's first year expenses went to two programs 
that gave Mr. Gingrich national television exposure. The records show 
the foundation spent $460,000-plus in the period from April 1 of 1993 
to March 31 of 1994. The largest expenditure, over $290,000, was 
related to sponsoring the broadcasts of Mr. Gingrich's college courses 
Renewing American Civilization. An additional $94,000 was raised by the 
foundation, which underwrote a televised call-in show in which Mr. 
Gingrich served as a co-host.''
  It goes on to say, ``While Mr. Gingrich has no formal ties to the 
foundation, its president, Jeffrey Eisensack, previously, headed 
GOPAC,'' and it goes on to say that the foundation worked out of 
GOPAC's headquarters for several months. More than half of the money 
spent by the organization over the 20-month period from its founding, 
$632,000 was for the class and the call-in show, and as a not-for-
profit organization, the foundation is exempt from taxes and donors can 
claim a charitable deduction on their income tax returns.
  That is in essence what Roll Call wrote this week in their front-page 
article about the questions and the concerns about these type of 
organizations and self-dealing.
  If we believe that it is wrong to permit a nonprofit group that comes 
and receives a grant to go ahead and lobby the Federal Government 
through their private resources, not their Federal dollars, which is 
against the law, then it must also be the intention to stop those 
nonprofit organizations that receive tax deductibility and therefore by 
doing so have fungibility of Federal dollars that all of us as Federal 
taxpayers participate in and for which they receive those who 
contribute a deduction.
  Then it must be the intent clearly to include those so that we can 
level the playing field and stop that undue political influence, and 
also to look at organizations that continuously lobby the Federal 
Government, give us letters, and tell us, ``This is the way you should 
be voting, this is the way we believe in,'' and in fact have the 
benefit of Federal dollars through tax exemption as well. That must be. 
It must be in the purity of the desire which needs to be addressed in 
the Istook amendment.
  Therefore, I believe our amendment is in order, and if not, then we 
see the hypocrisy of those who would silence voices that in fact 
receive what they consider a fungible benefit, a benefit that is 
transferable because they receive a Federal grant and cannot use that 
money but in fact have private resources to be able to use.
  We want to stop that, but we would not stop organizations by which an 
individual, a Member of this Congress, for example, could go ahead and 
use that tax-exempt organization, get the benefits, the fungible 
benefits of taxpayer dollars or another organization who lobbies a 
certain view, a certain idealistic view and continues to promote it, 
receives the benefit of tax-exempt dollars, and not be able to go 

[[Page H 8413]]
ahead and stop those because we believe that those are okay but ours 
are not. It simply does not make sense. If we want to in fact keep the 
integrity of what is being suggested wants to be stopped, we should be 
pursuing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                             point of order

  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order because the 
amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
on the appropriations bill and violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am shocked that in fact you want to 
persist on a point of order when this bill has been legislated 29 
times. There is legislation in the appropriations bill. You also so 
eloquently stated that you wanted to be sure that in fact the Federal 
Government did not use its dollars in any way, directly or indirectly, 
to be lobbied and therefore to seek even greater dollars to be spent on 
behalf of those causes, yet there is an objection.
  I would urge the Chair that based upon the fact that this is already 
protected under the rule and therefore subject to amendment and the 
amendment simply deals with the questions of advocacy which is dealt 
with under the protected part of the bill by the rule and with the 
question of a thing of value which we extend to tax exempt that it is 
appropriate to have the amendment proceed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The pending text title VI of the bill, comprises extensive 
legislative language permitted to remain in this general appropriations 
bill by House Resolution 208. The provisions of title VI establish a 
set of restrictions on Federal ``grantees'' who engage in ``political 
advocacy.'' In the pending text, the term ``grant'' includes a range of 
payments and benefits in cash and in kind.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey proposes to 
include additional legislation by extending the range of the term 
``grant'' to include certain benefits derived from a specified tax 
status which, in turn, derives in part from unrelated criteria.
  The Chair finds that the amendment does not merely perfect the 
legislation already in the bill. Rather, the amendment proposes 
additional legislation, in violation of clause 2 of rule 21.
  The point of order is sustained.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the Chair's ruling to say 
that you are calling the amendment out of order in view of the fact 
that it wishes to extend that which is a thing of value to something 
that we determine to be nonprofit and that therefore those people who 
take advantage of such a nonprofit organization for political purposes 
to lobby the Government of the United States, that that is out of 
order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The ruling of the Chair speaks for itself.


         Amendment No. 130 Offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas

  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 130 offered by Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas: Page 
     88, after line 7, add the following new title:

                       TITLE VIII--OTHER PROGRAMS


                                PROGRAMS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Sec. --.In addition to amounts otherwise provided in this 
     Act, for carrying out programs under the head ``school 
     improvement programs''; for carrying out programs under the 
     head ``vocational and adult education, respectively, 
     $50,000,000 and $100,000,000, to be derived from amounts 
     under the head ``Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--
     health care policy and research'' $60,000,000: Provided, 
     That, notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, none 
     of the funds under the head ``Agency for Health Care Policy 
     and Research--health care policy and research'' shall be 
     expended from the Federal Hospital Insurance and the Federal 
     Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2 1995, the gentleman 
from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, will be recognized for 10 minutes 
in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as you may or may not know, this is not the original 
amendment that I offered. My original amendment completely eliminated 
funding for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and used the 
savings for deficit reduction. However, it became necessary to make 
changes and offer the compromise that is before us today.
  I have chosen to support this compromise amendment because it 
accomplishes two goals.
  First, I believe that a cut of $60 million is an important first step 
toward the total elimination of this Agency. Next year, we can fight 
for total elimination of this Agency. We owe that to the taxpayers of 
this country.
  The second, and most important part of this compromise, is the 
stipulation that AHCPR will not be able to continue to take $5.8 
million each year from the Medicare trust fund as they have been doing 
since their creation in 1989.
  Whether the Agency is eliminated or not, this house can not, in good 
conscience, take money from our Medicare system which will be broke by 
the year 2002. So, by supporting this amendment, you will be increasing 
the Medicare trust fund by $5.8 million.
  I would like to share with you how AHCPR uses Medicare funds and its 
appropriated moneys. They are used to produce studies such as, and I 
quote, ``Cardiologists Know More About New Heart Attack Treatments Than 
Primary Care Doctors''--and quote--the ``Doctor-Patient Relationship 
Affects Whether Patients Sue for Malpractice''.
  Can you believe that a Government that has a $5 trillion debt take 
money from Medicare and spends millions on an agency that produces 
these types of reports and a host of others that are duplicative and 
useless.
  The Office of Technology Assessment has concluded that AHCPR's 
guideline program is one of 1,500 such efforts performed by both the 
Federal Government and the private sector.
  It is obvious that we do not need to fund this Agency that employs 
270 bureaucrats and in 6 years has spent 778 million taxpayer dollars--
$29.4 million of which has been siphoned off from the Medicare trust 
fund.
  Let me reiterate this point. If we don't pass this amendment, $5.8 
million will be taken out of Medicare next year and every year after 
that. In 7 years when Medicare goes broke, this agency will have stolen 
$80 million from our senior citizens.
  The American people want a balanced budget. They want the Government 
to stop spending their money on things that we don't need and can't 
afford. And we don't need, nor can we afford, the Agency for Health 
Care Policy and Research. A better name for this Agency would be the 
Agency for High Cost Publications and Research.
  I urge members to help lower the deficit, help save Medicare, and 
help protect taxpayers from having to fund a needless bureaucracy--help 
save medicare--vote for this amendment.
  I would hope that the gentleman would help us accept this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, has asked if 
I would accept his amendment. Let me say I have great misgivings about 
it. I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] on this, 
and I agree with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer].
  I am very reluctant to accept the amendment. I guess I could be 
persuaded to do so provided that my colleagues understand one thing: 
When you propose to cut Medicare by $270 billion, what you are telling 
the American people is that you can do it all without hurting senior 
citizens. I very, very deeply question that, but if we are 

[[Page H 8414]]
to minimize the hit on recipients of Medicare, we have to know how we 
can save money by eliminating waste in Medicare.
  This agency which you are cutting is the agency that is supposed to 
supply us with that information by doing the outcomes research that 
they do. I was going to read a whole series of examples of how we have 
had major savings in health care costs on a number of procedures, but 
in the interests of time I will not, with this simple statement: I will 
for the moment accept this simply because it helps on the vocational 
education side, but I think it is going to be essential, if this turkey 
of a bill ever manages to squeak out of this place, I think it is going 
to be essential for us to repair the damage in conference to this 
agency, because without it you can kiss goodbye any hope that you can 
cut any money out of Medicare without a substantial clobbering of 
senior citizens.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Johnson 
amendment.
  While I wish we were eliminating the Agency for Health Care Policy 
and Research [AHCPR] as the original amendment proposed, I'm all in 
favor of cutting $60 million from an agency that is:
  First, it is duplicative, since AHCPR is one of 10 Federal agencies 
that performs technology assessments; and
  Second, it is wasteful, given such important published findings as 
``Cardiologists Know More About Heart Attack Treatments than Primary 
Care Doctores.''
  Most importantly, this amendment will return almost $6 million to the 
Medicare Trust fund, a fund that is slated to go broke in just 7 years.
  If you are truly concerned about restoring fiscal sanity to our 
Federal Government, if you are truly concerned about the future of our 
Medicare system, then you will support the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts appropriations for 
the Agency of Health Care Policy Research by half. It generates savings 
of $60 million in budget authority, and $18 million in outlays. The 
savings is then transferred to two high-priority education programs.
  The merged Chapter 2-Eisenhower Professional Development Program 
receives $6 million in outlays, generating $50 million in budget 
authority.
  And the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Basic State Grants Program 
receives $12 million in outlays, generating $100 million in budget 
authority.
  The amendment is outlay neutral. It stays within the 602(b) budget 
allocation of the Labor-HHS-Education bill. In short, we have to 
evaluate our priorities. While health policy research is important, the 
education of our children is more important.
  It has the support of the authorizing and appropriating subcommittee 
and full committee chairmen, and the support of the leadership.
  Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, in our subcommittee I have been asking 
questions of the AHCPR for more than 3 years now.
  For 3 years, I have tried to question whether or not this Agency was 
duplicative and questioned some of the researchers motives and biases.
  Each year I was told this Agency was doing wonderful work and I 
should support it. However, I keep questioning what it does.
  In the 5 years AHCPR has been around it has released 15 guidelines, 
an average of 3 per year. The AHCPR has spent over $775 million during 
that same time.
  Anyone who produced so little in the private sector would be fired. 
In fact the private sector during the same time published 1,800 
guidelines.
  This year the Physician Payment Review Commission reported to 
Congress and stated that the guidelines produced by AHCPR are having 
little impact on clinical practice, are difficult to implement, and are 
used infrequently by the private sector.
  With budgets tight, Congress should consider the Texas example. Under 
the authority of the Texas Workers Compensation Commission, a committee 
comprised of representatives of the general public, medical 
professionals, and representatives of the insurance industry generated 
clinical practice guidelines that are user friendly, practical, and 
expected to improve the quality of patient care at a reduced cost.
  The participants involved in this process donated their time, and 
even paid their own expenses. All this was undertaken against a 
backdrop of major reform of the Texas workman's compensation laws, 
reforms which reduced the number of lawsuits, raised the amount of 
compensation available to injured workers, and transformed a budget 
deficit into a budget surplus.
  Unfortunately for the AHCPR, the new Congress is beginning to treat 
do-nothing agencies the same way the free market treats do-nothing 
businesses.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson].
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    amendment offered by Mr. Kleczka

  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. KLECZKA:
       Page 88, after line 7, insert the following new title:

                          TITLE VII--CPI INDEX

       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this Act may be 
     used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to implement a change 
     in the consumer price index (which is used to determine cost 
     of living adjustments for such programs as social security) 
     except when it is made known to the Federal official to whom 
     the funds are made available that the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate have authorized a change in 
     such index based upon a comprehensive revision of the market 
     basket.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of August 2, 1995, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka] and a Member opposed will be recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman does not mind, I will 
explain the amendment. Mr. Chairman, we will not use the 10 minutes. I 
would like to briefly explain what the amendment does and then yield 
briefly to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], my colleague 
and the coauthor of the amendment.
  Right now the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going through a very 
comprehensive revision of the CPI and they are looking at all the 
various components of market basket. In this bill we provide some $11 
million for that exercise and some 60 people.
  We do not in this amendment impede that exercise. It is something 
that is done every 10 years. It is necessary to do. However, we 
anticipate some major changes are going to be made in the CPI, the 
index which drives many programs around here, especially the Social 
Security Program.
  Because of the fact that there is going to be a rather large impact, 
it is the desire of the authors of the amendment not to have some 
faceless bureaucrat make those downward changes in 1999, but have this 
Congress the Members of the House and Senate look at that, take it up, 
talk about it, and then pass on it.
  What brought this to my attention, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in 
the budget resolution that we originally addressed in the House, there 
was a $22.8 billion reduction in Social Security benefits because this 
change was anticipated. Those dollars are being used in these budget 
resolutions for deficit reduction.
  Once it went to conference, the Senate modified that and they 
indicated that this reduction, which is currently being worked on, we 
do not know what it is going to be for sure, however, they guesstimate 
that it will entail some $7.6 to $8 billion cut in Social Security 
benefits.
  The reason that it is so important at this time is for us to sit idly 
by and let a bureaucrat reduce COLAs, reduce Social Security in this 
country for our senior citizens, while we know full well, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin just addressed that, we are going to be 
looking at a $270 billion cut in Medicare.

                              {time}  2345

  I happen to serve on the Subcommittee on Health in the Committee on 
Ways and Means, which will be addressing that massive cut. To think 
that there will be no effect on the seniors of this country is totally 
mistaken. There are going to be massive changes in out-of-pocket 
expenses, in deductibles being paid, so that, coupled with a decrease 
in COLA, is sure going to provide a real problem for our seniors.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KLECZKA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.

[[Page H 8415]]

  The balanced budget that the Republicans have put forward is balanced 
only because in part it assumes that older people who get Social 
Security cost-of-living increases will get less than they would get 
under the current rules. What the Republican budget proposes is that 
the amount by which older people are compensated for inflation be 
substantially reduced.
  As my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, said in the House budget 
that went through, the cumulative total in 2002, the first year of 
budget balance which comes from a reduction in what would otherwise 
have been paid to older people under the Consumer Price Index cost of 
living, is $22.6 billion. Members will remember we tried to say you 
could not count a reduction in Social Security cost-of-living payments 
as part of your budget balancing, and that was rejected, and it was 
rejected for a good reason, because the Republican budget is not in 
balance unless they succeed in getting a lower Consumer Price Index 
compensation.
  What the gentleman from Wisconsin is saying is we should vote on 
that, and the reason I think that justifies it is this: We did not 
politicize that CPI. The Speaker said earlier this year that he would 
abolish them if they did not reduce the CPI. He backed down on that, 
but that threat is still hanging over there.
  So we have had the high-level Republican leadership tell the CPI they 
would be abolished, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, they would be 
abolished if they did not cut it back. We have the Republican budget 
resolution, which assumes the Bureau of Labor Statistics will reduce 
the CPI that older people living on $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 a year will 
get less for inflation. If they live in assisted housing, their rent 
will go up when they get less money to pay for it.
  What we are saying is, given the threats that have been made, given 
this budget assumes the cost-of-living increase will be reduced, given 
that the Republican budget is balanced only if you assume older people 
get less money than they would now be entitled to get for inflation, we 
should vote on that, because we do not think the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics
 should be pressured without a vote, but by political threats and other 
things, into making that downward reduction.

  That is all the gentleman is saying. I think it is the least we can 
do.
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate my gratitude to the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], 
for accepting the amendment.
  I will not ask for a recorded vote. However, I will trust their good 
faith to take this to the conference and fight for it, although I am 
quite nervous over that happening without a rollcall vote, but 
nevertheless let that happen, and I will be watching.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard in opposition to the 
amendment?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the subcommittee chairman, Mr. 
Porter in a colloquy with regard to increasing funds for the Vocational 
Education Basic State Grant Program to the postrescission level. As you 
know the Economic and Education Opportunities Committee recently 
reported a bill which consolidates over 35 education and job training 
program into one Youth Development and career preparation block grant 
and reduced the funds for this program by 20 percent. The bill we are 
considering today further cuts the Vocational Education Basic State 
Grant Program from that reduction. My colleague, Congressman Sam 
Johnson's amendment adds $100 million to that program and I had an 
amendment to increase that amount by $15 million which almost reaches 
the post-rescission level for this program. I do not plan to offer this 
amendment because I understand the gentleman will work to restore the 
Vocational Education Basic State Grant Program to the post-rescission 
level in conference.
  Is that your understanding?
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I will assure the gentleman that I 
will do everything I can to restore funds to the Vocational Education 
Basic State Grant Program to the postrescession appropriation level.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with 
him on this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
                     amendment offered by mr. Ewing

  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 19.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Ewing: Page 88, after line 7, 
     insert the following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the requirements of section 
     428(b)(1)(U)(iii) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 with 
     respect to any lender when it is made known to the Federal 
     official having authority to obligate or expend such funds 
     that the lender has a loan portfolio under part B of title IV 
     of such Act that is equal to or less than $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] will be recognized for 10 
minutes, and a Member will be recognized in opposition for 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is to address a rather simple problem 
dealing with our student loan problem.
  In the Higher Education Act of 1992, there were some requirements for 
audits of all lenders who participate in the Federal family education 
loan program. Small banks and credit unions which maintain service and 
provide student loan portfolios have found that this audit requirement 
is very expensive and, in many cases, consumes almost all of the profit 
from the loans which they make, they usually make on small portfolios, 
from $3,000 to $5,000.
  The audits have cost from $2,000 to $14,000. We can see that this 
very clearly forces small lenders out of the business of lending to 
students.
  Recently, I contacted the Department of Education about a waiver, and 
they said that was not possible.
  I have absolutely no doubt that this was not the intention of this 
Congress. The office of the inspector general at the Department of 
Education has also expressed concern regarding the burden and stated, 
``We are concerned that the costs may outweigh the benefits of the 
legislative required annual audits.''
  These audits are not even required to be filed in Washington. They 
are put in a drawer and left in the local bank.
  I would ask that this amendment be approved which merely, for a 1-
year period, says this audit requirement for banks with less than $5 
million in student loans will not be enforced until the authorizing 
committee can correct this inequity.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that both sides would accept 
this amendment for the sake of students and give us that year. What has 
happened was not intended with the reauthorization of the legislation 
in 1992.
  If we have a year, we can work out what the inspector general has 
indicated should be done. So give us a year and we can correct it and 
at the same time we will not cause any students to lose loans because 
we have taken away the very lenders that should be out there who cannot 
afford to do it, of course, if the audit is higher than their loan 
portfolio.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that assurance from the 
chairman of the committee.
  Mr. Chairman, in partnership with Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, I have 
introduced an amendment to H.R. 2127 which will eliminate funding for 
an ineffective and burdensome regulation now mandated by the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Higher Education Act of 1992. 
This act blindly requires all lenders who participate in the Federal 
Family Education Loan Program to perform expensive, 

[[Page H 8416]]
comprehensive annual audits on their student loan portfolios.
  In our respective districts, the gentleman from Kentucky and I 
represent small banks and credit unions which maintain and service 
small student loan portfolios in compliance with the Federal Family 
Education Loan Program. The profit on these portfolios is estimated to 
around 3 to 5 thousand dollars annually, while the audit require by the 
Department of Education costs anywhere from 2 to 14 thousand dollars 
annually. As you can see it is beyond common sense for small lenders to 
service these loans and participate in the FFEL program. In fact, many 
small lenders are selling their portfolios and leaving the student loan 
business altogether. This is not fair to the smaller lenders who wish 
to service and maintain student loans and it reduces consumer choice 
and convenience. If this policy is enforced this Congress will 
effectively cut small lenders out of the student loan business and deny 
consumers the opportunity, especially in rural areas, to receive 
personal attention at their local bank.
  Recently, I contacted the Department of Education about the 
possibility of a waiver or alternative to this detrimental mandate. The 
Department stated, ``* * * lender audits are required by statute * * 
*'' and that the ``* * * statute does not provide authority for the 
Department to waive the annual audit based on the size of the lender's 
FFEL portfolio or the cost of the audit.'' Furthermore, according to 
the Department of Education's Office of the Inspector General, lender 
portfolios totaling less than 10 million dollars do not even have to 
send their audit to the Department for review. They are only required 
to ``* * * hold the reports for a period of three years and shall 
submit them only if requested.'' That means lenders waste thousands of 
dollars on a compliance audit that is never sent anywhere. I have no 
doubt that protecting the integrity of the student loan program is 
important to all of us. However, this current situation does not 
protect any portfolios under $10 million because no one reviews the 
results of the audits.
  The Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Education 
has also expressed concern regarding this burden in their Semiannual 
Report (October 93-March 94) stating, ``* * * we are concerned that the 
cost may outweigh the benefits of legislatively required annual audits 
of all participants, regardless of the size of their participation or 
the risk they represent to the program.'' In this report the Inspector 
General recommends that a threshold be established for requiring an 
institutional audit, ``* * * and we continue to believe that a 
threshold is necessary for both the institutional and lender audits. 
Such a threshold would eliminate the audit burden from the smaller 
participants in the program while helping assure that scarce 
Departmental resources are focused on the areas of greatest risk.''
  The Ewing/Lewis spending limitation amendment will strike funding for 
the enforcement of the audit requirement on loan portfolios equal to or 
less than $5 million dollars in fiscal year 1996. We believe this 
amendment is important to the future involvement of many institutions' 
participation in the FFEL program.
  While by now many lenders have either complied with the audit or sold 
their portfolios for fiscal year 1995, we must provide relief to those 
lenders who still own their portfolios in the next fiscal year. The 
Ewing/Lewis amendment works in concert with the Department of Education 
and the authorizing committee which have both expressed the need for an 
audit threshold.
  Mr. Chairman, the Ewing/Lewis amendment is simple. It strikes funding 
for enforcement of a bad statute until Congress has the opportunity to 
fix this legislation. The Congressional Budget Office has reviewed this 
amendment and said that it is revenue neutral. This amendment will help 
the little guy in the student loan business and ensure consumer choice 
and convenience. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Ewing/Lewis amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek recognition in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply say very quickly that I come from a 
rural district. I have many small financial institutions, and I suspect 
that what the gentleman is trying to accomplish may very well be right 
on the button. I do not want to suggest that it is not.
  But I have to say this: It is now 5 minutes to midnight. We are 
talking about taxpayers' money, and what the amendment does is to 
exempt from audit requirement a number of financial institutions who 
deal with this program. I am certain that the authorizing committee has 
the capacity to come up with the kind of exemptions that we ought to 
provide for those financial institutions.
  With all due respect, I do not think that 20 people on this House 
floor have any idea what we ought to be doing on this tonight. And 
because we are talking about taxpayers' money, because I have a funny 
quality of not liking to be embarrassed by finding that some strange 
things have happened with taxpayers' money, I am reluctant to just say 
we are going to exempt these folks from audit, because I think there 
might be another way.
  So I am not going to press this. I am not going to push it to 
rollcall or anything like that. If the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter] wants to accept it, that is his prerogative on behalf of the 
committee.
  I simply say I have great misgivings, and even it is accepted, I want 
to say that I will have to be very, very much persuaded in conference 
before we allow this to move ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I do accept the amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Lewis], my coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is good for young 
men and women who need a loan to go to college.
  That's what the Ewing-Lewis amendment is about.
  I believe Members on both sides of the aisle agree that we need to 
reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and private citizens.
  Many regulations are too expensive, too burdensome and just plain 
silly.
  The Ewing-Lewis amendment would do away with such a regulation--a 
regulation that threatens the student loan program.
  Three years ago the Higher Education Amendments Act was passed. Just 
months ago, and 3 years later, the Office of the Inspector General came 
up with a gem: Every bank and credit union will have to conduct an 
independent, retroactive audit of their student loan program.
  It might sound like a decent idea.
  Unfortunately, the audits will cost between $3,000 and $14,000--
perhaps more. That's going to cause many of the smaller banks and 
credit unions in Kentucky's 2nd district--and all over the U.S.--to 
give up on student loans.
  A credit union in Bowling Green, Kentucky has reduced their loan 
portfolio from $3 million last year to $300,000 this year--yet they'll 
still have to fork over between $3,000 and $5,000 for each audit.
  This money is not in the credit union's budget--so other services 
will be affected.
  The Kentucky Credit Union League says many members are getting out of 
the student loan business altogether--they said this regulation is the 
last straw.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not huge, rich institutions. They're banks 
and credit unions made up of farmers, small business men and women, and 
middle-income folks.
  Banks and credit unions are already subject to four separate audits.
  The Ewing-Lewis amendment would exempt banks and credit unions with 
less than $5 million in student loans from this regulation--which takes 
effect this September 30th.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make it easier for students to obtain 
college loans--and we need to encourage banks and credit unions to make 
these loans.
  This regulation is heading towards small banks and credit unions like 
a freight train--and it's going to derail the student loan program when 
young men and women need it most.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on Ewing-Lewis and say ``yes'' 
to allowing students to continue to seek college loans.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am inserting in the Record a statement in 
favor of the amendment.

[[Page H 8417]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Ewing Amendment to 
provide regulatory relief to small lenders who participate in the 
student loan program.
  We talk so much in this House about supporting education, and every 
one of us here tonight can do that by voting for this amendment.
  Small community financial institutions in my district have been 
calling my office to let me know that they may stop participating in 
the program because the costs of these audits exceed the entire value 
of their student loan portfolios.
  Faced with that situation, they have no alternative but to stop 
providing loans.
  That denies young people in my district access to the loans they need 
to finance their education.
  I would like to commend Mr. Ewing and Mr. Lewis for offering this 
amendment. Also, I'd like to thank both Chairmen Goodling and Porter 
for being very helpful and receptive when I first brought my concerns 
with this situation to their attention.
  Finally, I'd like to say to President Clinton that this is one 
education problem we can solve without spending a penny--in fact we 
will save some money by correcting this provision.
  I hope all of you will join us in supporting this amendment and I 
hope the President will move to announce a waiver from this regulation 
for small lenders so that small lenders won't drop out of the student 
loan program.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Illinois Mr. Ewing and I do so wearing two hats.
  As my colleagues know, I chair the Financial Institutions 
Subcommittee of the Banking Committee. Additionally, I am the third-
ranking member of the Committee on Educational and Economic 
Opportunities. On that Committee, I have worked long and hard to 
restore and ensure the integrity to our various title 4 federal student 
assistance programs.
  In many respects, the 1992 Higher Education Act was landmark 
legislation because it finally, finally took aim at the scam schools--
schools that were ripping off their own students and the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, that Higher Education Action contained over 100 new 
provisions designed to crack down on a range of abuses. Frankly, we got 
it right on most of these integrity provisions. But we're here this 
evening talking about one reform that needs fine-tuning. And that is 
the provision that requires independent audits for every bank's student 
loan portfolios.
  The Ewing amendment is a common-sense amendment. It would exempt from 
these auditing requirements banks with small student loan portfolios--
under $5 million.
  As a Member of the Opportunities Committee, I recognize the need for 
the Department of Education to monitor student lenders. But the 
Department and the guaranty agencies already have the authority to 
examine portfolios. That means these mandatory independent audits are 
redundant.
  As the Chairman of the Financial Institutions Subcommittee, I am 
keenly aware of the regulatory burden these types of audits place on 
small banks. Because of their special nature, in many cases these 
audits completely overwhelm the bank's yield on the loans. (There's the 
story of the small bank that made $60.14 in loan origination fees for 
its one student loan but is being forced to pay for a $3,500 audit or 
be in violation of law.)
  Obviously it will not take long for these banks to fold their tents 
and withdraw from the battlefield. To quit the program. And I submit 
that it won't take too many of these withdrawals to accelerate any 
developing access problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Ewing amendment. And I look forward to 
working with the gentleman and the small banking communities to find a 
permanent ``fix'' for this problem.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
  (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support.
  Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in strong support of the Ewing 
amendment.
  Without this amendment, on September 30, 1995, all guaranteed student 
lenders will be required to submit to unnecessary, expensive, and 
counterproductive audits. Small community lenders will be forced out of 
the guaranteed student loan program. They will not be able to offer 
this service to their customers in their small towns because the 
compliance costs will simply be too high for the lenders to be able to 
afford the program.
  One lender has been informed that an audit of their $3.5 million 
portfolio will cost eleven thousand dollars. Costs that high will 
outweigh any profit a lender could make and will drive lenders from the 
program. Students will face a lack of loan availability, and small 
lenders will lose one more avenue to serve the credit needs of their 
communities.
  Even the Department of Education admits that these audits are 
unnecessary for lenders with small portfolios of loans. The Department 
of Education, Federal and State financial institution regulators, and 
student loan guarantee agencies already conduct financial and 
compliance audits of lenders. And now, unless this amendment is passed, 
those lenders will be required to submit to expensive, retroactive 
audits for student loans made in 1993 and 1994. As a lender in this 
Member's district wrote, ``This is a classic example of legislation 
that inequitably impacts independent businesses by capriciously forcing 
us to retroactively pay charges that were completely unknown to us at 
the time.''
  Mr. Chairman, the audit requirements for lenders with small 
portfolios will reduce loan availability, harm small lenders' ability 
to serve their communities, and will gain nothing for the Federal 
Government.
  The distinguished gentleman from Illinois is to be commended for this 
commonsense amendment. This member is pleased to support him, and urges 
support for the Ewing amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

                              {time}  2400

  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are at the end and if we are I would 
simply want to say that the most that can be said about this bill, or 
everything that can be said about this bill has been said, I hope.
  I do not want to take any more time than necessary. I simply want to 
say this is one mean and ugly piece of work. It makes deep cuts in 
programs that protect workers' pension, health benefits frauds, 
industrial accidents, and the right to request for pay and better 
working conditions.
  It cuts buildings and Federal payments to local school districts. It 
will force educational quality to go down and property taxes to go up.
  It hammers vulnerable Americans, devastates training programs, and 
cuts student loans.
  For the first time in 37 years this bill will provide no contribution 
to the national defense education loan fund. It devastates training 
programs.
  We are quick in this Congress to promise training when we are 
rounding up votes for some new trade deal that will boost the profits 
of big multinational corporations, but when it comes to paying for that 
training we forget about our commitments, do we not?
  That is what has happened, is it not?
  The bad news does not end there. We also have legislation which is 
loaded with special interest provisions. It is a tool by which the 
rights of citizens affected by this legislation to petition Congress 
and make their views known is being denied and squelched in many ways.
  I would say all in all that this is the most vicious exercise of 
public power that I would ever hope to see in this democracy on an 
appropriation bill. I hope the American people wake up very soon to 
what is going on.
  This is an antieducation, antiworking family, antiwoman, 
antiopportunity appropriation act of 1995. It would end the bipartisan 
commitment to education, to worker dignity, to dignified retirement 
that has existed in this House for as long as I have been here.
  I will simply say this, it is up to Republicans, who I know are 
troubled with the extremism of this bill, to decide whether this bill 
will succeed in breaking that bipartisan commitment.
  I hope that you do not let it do it so that we can send this bill 
back to committee, repair the 602 allocation, remove the imbalances 
that presently are demonstrated in this bill, and resume the bipartisan 
commitment regardless of which party is in control of this joint, 
resume the bipartisan commitment that this country simply 

[[Page H 8418]]
must have if we are to make the investments we need and move this 
country forward.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read the last 3 lines.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996''.
               Amendment Number 63 Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of August 2, 1995, 
proceedings will now resume on amendment number 63 offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders] on which 
further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a 
voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 284, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 624]

                               AYES--141

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden

                               NOES--284

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Bateman
     Filner
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Thurman
     Williams
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  0023
  Messrs. TAUZIN, PETERSON of Florida, HASTINGS of Florida, POMEROY, 
MEEHAN, RICHARDSON, MFUME, GEJDENSON, HOYER, and WYNN, and Mrs. MEEK of 
Florida, Mrs. KENNELLY, and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. DIXON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Walker). There being no further 
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the Chair, Mr. Walker, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2127) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, 
and Education, and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, pursuant to House 
Resolution 208, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  (Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to proceed 
out of order.)

                          ____________________